(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Papers relating to foreign affairs"



: J.ft^ ft 






& 










\fi 



^™i 


I Hln iilBi iBifiwiitwUm 







* * 5 



Wti 



I. 



,1' i 



&11 



\jp/ 



PAPERS 



RELATING TO 



FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 



PART I. 



COMMUNICATED TO CONGRESS DECEMBER 1, 1862. 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1862. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2011 with funding from 

The Institute of Museum and Library Services through an Indiana State Library LSTA Grant 



http://www.archive.org/details/papersrelatingtoOOinunit 



PAPERS 



RELATING TO 



FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 



GREAT BRITAIN. 



No. 



74 



75 



81 



143 
144 

95 



From whom and to 
whom. 



DESPATCHES. 

Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 



.do. 



...do. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward, (extract.) 



Date. 



1861. 

Nov. 22 



Nov. 22 



Nov. 29 



Subject. 



Dec. 13 



Dec. 13 



Dec. 27 



Acknowledging reception of missing de- 
spatch in reference to case of Mr. Bunch, 
and transmitting copy of note to Earl 
Russell announcing revocation of Mr. 
Bunch's exequatur ; reasons therefor. 
Sense entertained by President of action 
of Lord Lyons. 

Transmitting copy of note of Earl Russell 
in reference to intercepted bag of Mr 
Bunch and to correspondence of British 
subjects in southern States. 

Position of law officers of Crown on Trent 
question ; serious aspect of affairs. Earl 
Russell's reply in regard to revocation of 
Mr. Bunch's exequatur; thinks reasons 
insufficient. If necessary, communica- 
tion will continue to be made with 
authorities of insurgents, but will not 
imply acknowledgment of their inde- 
pendence. Conduct of Mr. Adams has 
been such as to command esteem and 
respect. 

Mr. Adams replies, sustaining action of 
United States government in reference 
to Mr. Bunch. Acknowledgment of 
friendly conduct of British government 
towards himself. 

Approving^action of Mr. Adams in reference 
to Bunch case. 

Will hear Biitish government in reference 
to correspondence of its subjects in south, 
and do whatever is possible consistent 
with safety and welfare of United States. 

Aspect of affairs in England still serious, 
but signs of a more fiiendly feeling and 
a better understanding of the United 
States. Efforts of private citizens abroad 
towaids counteracting misrep~esenta- 
tions of insurgent emissaries. 



Page. 



12 

12 

12 



IV 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 

GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



No. 



From whom and to 
whom. 



Date. 



Subject. 



102 
103 

105 

171 
172 

109 

178 

179 

112 

180 
114 

182 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward , (extract ) 
Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 

Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 



.do. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Adams. 
Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 



1862. 

Jau. 17 

Jan. 17 

Jan. 24 

Jan. 31 

Jan. 31 

Jan. 31 

Feb. 4 

Feb. 5 

Feb. 7 

Feb. 10 

Feb. 13 

Feb. 13 



184 


d0 - 


Feb. 


14 


186 


..do... 


Feb. 


17 


187 


do 


Feb. 


17 


187i 


do 


Feb. 


17 


190 


do 


Feb. 


19 


123 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Feb. 


27 


197 


Mr Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Feb. 


28 


125 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward, 


Mar. 


6 



Settlement of the Trent affair. Incidents 

and effects in England. 
Results of settlement of Trent affair. 
Schemes of insurrectionary emissaries; 
their promises of negro emancipation. 
Exportation of arms and munitions from 
England. Vessels of the insurgents in 
foreign ports. 
Policy of the United States towards Great 

Britain. 
Instructing to ask explanations of refusal 
to allow United States steamers to coal 
at Nassau. 
English opinions on the American question. 
Position and strength of parties in Par- 
liament. 
Transmitting correspondence in regard to 
passage of British troops through Maine. 
Recognition of insurgents as belligerents 
has only tended to the prolongation of a 
strife injurious to European interests. 
Approving proceedings in regard to the 
Nashville. Refers to reports of intended 
recognition and intervention to break 
blockade. American people will not 
allow insurrection to succeed, either 
with or without foreign aid. 
Parliamentary proceedings in regard to 
recognition. Efforts of insurgent emis- 
saries Speech of the lords commis- 
sioners. 
Military operations. Progress of the Union 

armies. 
Proceedings in Parliament in reference to 
blockade and treatment of British sub- 
jects Unfavorable opinions entertained 
towards United States. 
Insurgents on'y enabled to prolong the 
war by European sympathy and aid. In- 
conveniences of this policy to Great 
Britain herself. Nt gleet to enforce the 
neutiality proclamation. 
Case of the English steamer General Mira- 
mon. 

Efficiency of the blockade. . 

Obstructions of Charleston harbor ., 

Relations of slavery to the insurrection. 

Inevitable results of the contest. 
Conflicting opinions about result entitling 
the U. States to a suspension of judgment. 
Representations to Earl Russell concerning 
the fitting out of the Oreto. His reply. 
Restoration of trade on inland ways and 
waters in consequence of successes of 
Union armies. 
Note to Earl Russell in reference to action 
of authorities of Nassau. 



41 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 

GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



No. 


From whom and to 


Date. 


Subject. 


Page. 




whom. 














1862. 






199- 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Mar. 


6 


The blockade. Its admited results the true 
test of its efficiency. Rapid failure of 
the resources of the insurgents. What 
benefit does Great Britain derive from her 
position ? 


42 


201 


do. (extract). 


Mar. 


7 


Approval of all Mr. Adams's proceedings. 
Mr. Motley's co-operation. 


44 


128 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Mar. 


7 


Discussions in Parliament. Less disposi- 
tion to interference. Outfit of steamers 
in English ports to break the blockade. 


44 


203 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 


Mar. 


10 


The blockade and its effects. The question 


45 




Adams. 






of emancipation. 




207 


do ,-„.- 


Mar. 


11 


Insurance by English capitalists of vessels 
engaged in running the blockade and 


46 




















carrying contraband of war. 




131 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Mar. 


13. 


Supplies and ships for the insurgents. De- 
sire for a permanent separation, in order 
to lessen the power of the United States. 
Note to Earl Russell in the case of the 
General Miramon. 


47 




Mr. Seward to Mr. 


Mar. 


15 


Earl Russell's reply 


49 


209 


Declining strength of the insurrection. 


49 




Adams. 






Concession of belligerent rights unne- 
cessary. 




210 


Circular . »„ 


Mar. 
Mar. 
Mar. 


17 
17 
20 


Same 


50 




Passport regulations rescinded 


50 


132 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


Consequences of the refusal to accept adhe- 


50 




Seward. 






sion of United States to Declaration of 
Paris. 




213 


Mr. Seward, to Mr. 


Mar. 


25 




52 




Adams. 










135 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Mar. 


27 


Efforts by British subjects to violate the 
blockade. Case of the Oreto. General 
belief in a permanent separation of the 

United States. 


53 


137 


d ° 


Mar. 


27 


Transmitting notes of Earl Russell in re- 
gard to case of the Nashville, and treat- 
ment of the Flambeau at Nassau. 


56 


218 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


April 


1 


Violations of the blockade. Mistaken course 
of the British government. Our desire 
to cultivate friendly relations. 


59 


220 


. do 


April 


2 


Insurrections in China and elsewhere 


61 


140 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


April 


3 


No disposition to retract recognition of in- 


6L 




Seward. 






surgents as belligerents. Further cor- 
respondence in case of the Oreto. 




224 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


April 


3 


The blockade and the Merrimac 


63 








225 


" d ° 


April 


4 


Fitting out of vessels of war in England 
for the insurgents. 


63 


226 


Cl ° 


April 


8 


Signing of the treaty to suppress the Afri- 
can slave trade. 


64 


142 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


April 


11 


Further in regard to the Oreto. British 


65 




Seward. 






government still declines to take action 
in the case. 




228 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 


April 


14 




67 




Adams. 









VI 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



No. From whom and to 


Date. 


Subject. 


Page. 




whom. 














1862. 






144 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


April 


16 


Conversation with Earl Russell. Remon- 


70 




Seward. 






strances against encouragement given to 
the insurgents. Earl Russell thinks the 
British government cannot change its 
position . 




232 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 


April 


16 


Embarrassments of commerce resulting 


73 




Adams. 






from recognition of insurgents as bel- 
ligerents. 




235 


do 


April 


19 


The grievances and alienations between 
the two countries deducible from the 
concession of belligerent rights to the 
insurgents. 


74 


146 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


April 


21 


'"ase of the Emily St Pierre 


75 




Seward. 










148 


d ° 


April 


25 


Fluctuations of public opinion on reception 
of news from America. Persistence in 
furnishing supplies to the insurgents. 


76 


238 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Apiil 


26 


State of affairs at home . 


77 








240 


d ° 


April 


28 


The capture of New Orleans. Five steam- 
ers for the insurgents fitting out in Eng- 
land. 


78 


244 


d ° 


May 


1 


Subscriptions in Liverpool to aid the insur- 
rection. 


78 


150 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


May 


2 


Opening of the International Exhibition. 


78 




Seward. 






Increase of pressure for intervention. 




151 


do 


May 


2 


Correspondence with Earl Russell in regard 
to the cases of the Labuan and the Emily 
St. Pierre. 


79 


245 




May 


5 


Successful progress of the campaign. Par- 
tial opening of southern ports. Ratifi- 
cation of the treaty to suppress the 
slave trade. 


82 


156 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


May 


8 


Transmitting correspondence in regard to 


83 




Seward. 






blockade. Earl Russell pronounces it a 
great injury to other nations. Says 
Great Britain cannot frame new statutes 
to aid it. Mr. Adams again calls atten- 
tion to the efforts to violate it in defiance 
of national comity and international law. 




158 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


May 


9 


Case of the Emily St. Pierre. Biitish gov- 


86 




Seward. 






ernment decline to take action, on 
ground that they have no jurisdiction 
or legal power. 




248 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 


May 


9 


Approval of demand for restoration of the 


87 




Adams. 






Emily St. Pierre. 




249 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 


Miy 


12 


Military and naval successes. Modifica- 


88 




Adams. 






tions of the blockade. 




250 


do 


May 


12 


The President's proclamation opening cer- 
tain southern ports to trade under re- 
strictions. 


88 


159 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward, (extract. ) 


May 


15 


Conversation with Earl Russell on progress 
of the war. Public sentiment of the 
two countries in reference to each other. 


89 


160 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


May 


15 


Further correspondence in the case of the 


91 




Seward. 






Emily St. Pierre. British government 
decline to interpose to restore the vessel. 





LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



VII 



From whom and to 
whom. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams . 



.do. 



.do. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 



.do. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Adams. 
do 



do 

do 

..".do.......... 

do 

do 


May 
May- 
June 
June 

June 
June 
June 
June 

June 


29 

31 

2 

2 

7 



do 

Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward. 
do 


9 
13 

18 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Adams. 

do 

Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward. 
do 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Adams. 
.....do 



Date. 



1862. 
May 19 



May 20 
May 22 

May 22 



May 23 

May 26 
May 28 



Subject. 



Mr. F. W. Seward 
to Mr. Adams. 



June 20 

June 23 

June 24 

June 26 

June 26 

June 26 

June 27 

June 30 



All the important southern ports now re- 
covered, except Wilmington, Charleston, 
Mobile, and Galveston, and those well 
blockaded. Regulations for trade with 
the reopened ports. 

The case of the Labuan under judicial in- 
vestigation. 

Communications from the Navy Depart- 
ment relative to the case of the Emilv 
St. Pierre. 

Conversation and correspondence with Earl 
Russell, who thinks the British govern- 
ment cannot change its policy. Mr. 
Adams urges that its practical effect has 
been to uphold the insurrection. 

State of the Mexican question. Disrup- 
tion of the agreement between the three 
powers. 

Restitution decreed in the case of the La- 
buan 

Effects of reopening of ports. Prospects 
of the war, and course of foreign na- 
tions in regard to it. The interests of 
all maritime nations connected with our 
own. The relations of slavery to the 
contest. 

The case of the Emily St. Pierre 

The case of the Emily St. Pierre. , 

Position of military affairs 

Purchases of arms and military supplies in 
England by the insurgents. 

Mexican affairs 

Naval and military events . 

The case of the Emily St. Pierre 

Transmitting correspondence with Earl 
Russell in case of the Emily St. Pierre. 

Case of the Emily St. Pierre. A similar 
case during the administration of Presi- 
dent Adams. 

Correspondence with Earl Russell in regard 
to prohibition of export of saltpetre. 

Conversation with Earl Russell on progress 
of the war. 

The United States ship-of-war Saginaw or- 
dered away from Hong Kong, China. 

Progress of military and naval affairs 

Continuance of efforts to break the block- 
ade. 

Diminution of the cotton supply. Its 
results. 

Nassau used as a place of deposit by the 
insurgents for munitions of war. 

Revival of commerce at New Orleans and 
Memphis. Military events. 

Position of military affairs 



Paere. 



95 

96 

97 

97 

100 

101 
101 



106 
106 
106 

108 

109 
109 
110 

110 

113 



114 

115 

116 
117 

118 

119 

120 

121 



VIII 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



No. 



From whom and to 
whom. 



Date. 



Subject. 



182 

287 



288 
290 
295 

293 

134 



296 

185 
298 
299 

186 
187 

188 
189 

191 

303 

306 
194 

196 
308 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr, Seward to Mr. 

Adams. 

, do 

do 

do 

do.... 

Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 

Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Adams. 
, do 



1862. 
July 3 

July 5 



July 
July 
July 



Circular 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward. 
, do 



do. 

, do. 

do. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 



.do. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward . 

do 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 



July 9 
July 9 



July 11 

July 11 

July 12 

July 12 

July 14 

July 17 

July 17 

July 17 

July 17 

July 18 

July 18 

July 24 

July 27 

July 25 

July 28 



The cotton supply. The condition and 
opinions of the British people. 

Extreme advocates and opponents of 
slavery acting as if in conceit to precip- 
itate a servile war. 

The military situation , 

Mexican treaty not ratified .., 

General Butler's order concerning the 
women in New Orleans. 

Case of the Emily St. Pierre.... 

Transmitting correspondence relative to the 
fitting out of a new war steamer (the 290) 
for the insurgents. 

The guarantee of the isthmus of Panama to 
New Granada. The United States desire 
to act in accord with the other powers 
interested. 

Increase of active sympathy with the re- 
bellion. 

Military events and their effects 



Probable issue of letters of marque to sup- 
press the piracy of the insurgents. 

Transmitting copy of President's message 
to Congress on the subject of emanci- 
pation. 

Effect of news of battles before Richmond. 
Parliamentary proceedings. 

Transmitting correspondence in reference 
to the repairs of the Tuscarora at South- 
ampton. 

Transmitting correspondence in relation to 
the Saginaw at Hong Kong. 

Communications between European powers 
in regard to mediation in American 
affairs. 

Transmitting note from Earl Russell in re- 
gard to the slave trade treaty, and pass- 
ports for vessels legally employed. 

The supply and export of cotton. Exaggera- 
tions of the amount destroyed. Inter- 
vention will end the trade by extinguish- 
ing the slave labor system. 

Restrictions on transhipment of certain 
merchandise at New York. 

Correspondence with Earl Russell relative 
to the case which occurred in 1799 simi- 
lar to that of the Emily St. Pierre. 

Evidence in regard to the war steamer fit- 
ting out at Liverpool for the insurgents, 
(the 290.)— Efforts to induce the British 
government to interpose for her deten- 
tion. 

The struggle in America considered in its 
relations to Europe. Purposes of the 
American people. Consequences of in- 
tervention. 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



IX 



From whom and to 
whom. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 

Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 

do...„ 



do 

, do.... 



.do. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 



...do. 
...do. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward 
do 



Circular 



.do. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 

do 



do. 

do. 



Circular . 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Adams. 
Mr. Adams to Mr. 

Seward. 
do 



Date. 



1862. 
July 31 

July 31 

July 31 
July 31 
Auar. 1 



Aug. 
Aug. 



Aug. 
Aug. 

Aug. 

Aug. 



Aug. 8 

Aug. 8 

Aug. 8 

Aug. 13 

Aug. 13 

Aug. 14 

Aug. 15 

Aug. 18 

Aug. 18 

Aug. 22 

Aug. 22 



Subject. 



Reply accepting propositions of Earl Russell 
in regard to slave trade treaty and pass- 
ports for vessels. 

Closing of Parliament. Desire generally 
entertained for the dismemberment of 
the Union. 

Further correspondence in regard to the 
case of the Saginaw at Hong Kong. 

Sailing of the 290, the British government 
failing to take steps to detain her. 

Conversation with Earl Russell in regard 
to use made of Nassau by the insurgents; 
the cases of the Orelo and 290, and the 
guarantf-e of the isthmus of Panama to 
New Granada. 

Appointments under the treaty for the sup- 
pression of the slave trade. 

The true relations of the American conti- 
nent to Europe misunderstood abroad. 
The inefhcacy and disastrous consecprences 
of European interference in American 
affairs. 

Trade at New Orleans. The export of cotton. 

Approval of Mr. Adams's proceedings in re- 
gard to the Tuscarora. 

Pursuit of the 290 directed to be made by 
the Tuscarora. 

Transmitting Earl Russell's letter to Liver- 
pool merchants about the uses made by 
them of the port of Nassau. 

Advantages offered to emigrants by the 
present condition of the United States. 

No passports to be granted to peisons liable 
to military duty. 

Reorganization and increase of the armies 
of the United States. 

European intervention and its consequences. 
Military events. 

Satisfaction derived from just and friendly 
proceedings of British government in re- 
gard to the Oreto and Nassau. 

The exclusion of American cruisers from 
British ports in China. 

Treasury regulations in regard to exporta- 
tion s from New York to Nassau. 

Foreign intervention. Policy of the United 
States in regard to it. Necessary perma- 
nence of the American Union. Foreign 
interference useless and foreign domina- 
tion impossible 

Withdrawal of the army of the Potomac 
from the peninsula. 

Effect of American news. Publication of 
Earl Russell's reply to despatch No. 260. 

Note to Earl Russell giving assent to his 
proposition in regard to the treaty for 
the suppression of the slave trade. 



158 

159 

161 
162 
162 

164 
165 



168 
169 

169 

170 

172 

172 
172 
173 
174 

175 
175 

176 

179 
ISO 
181 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



No. 


From whom and to 


Date. 


Subject. 


Page. 




whom. 














1865 


* 






331 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Aug. 


25 


Earl Russell's reply to Liverpool merchants 
received with satisfaction. 


182 


211 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Aug. 


29 


Italian affairs. English sympathy with the 
Garibaldi movement. 


182 


214 


do 


Sept. 


4 


Conversation with Earl Russell in regard 
to vessels endeavoring to violate the 
blockade. 


183 


216 


d ° 


Sept. 


4 


Earl Russell's acknowledgment of response 
to his suggestion about the treaty for the 
suppression of slave trade. 


185 


219 


do 

Mr. Seward to Mr. 


Sept. 
Sept. 


5 

8 


Case of the Oreto .......... .... 


185 


336 


Position of military affairs 


188 




Adams. 










221 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Sept. 


12 


Distress in the manufacturing districts. 
Public sentiment in Great Britain. 


189 


340 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Sept. 


13 


Evidence in regard to the Oreto and the 
Florida. 


191 


341 


do 


Sept. 


15 


Retreat of insurgents from the border of 
the loyal States. 


192 


345 


do 

......do.......... 

do 


Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept, 


15 
15 
15 
17 


Italian and Mexican affairs ...... 


193 


347 


The cotton trade in New Orleans . 


193 


349 


The great battle of Antietam 


193 


351 


Relations with Japan. ... 


194 


353 


do 


19 


Correction of erroneous reports in regard 


194 










to a conversation between Mr. Adams 












and Lord Palmerston. 












Accompanying the President's proclama- 
tion of warning to the insurrectionary 


195 




















States. 




356 


Mr Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Sept. 


23 


The case of the Oreto _. . 


197 








24 


Circular . . 


Sept. 
Sept. 


25 


Regulations respecting passports . ...... 


198 


225 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 


25 


Mr. Dayton's course. State of public sen- 


198 




Seward. 






timent. The Italian question. 




227 


do 


Sept. 
Sept. 


26 


The case of the 290, (Alabama) 


199 


359 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 


26 


Gradual exhaustion of the insurgent States. 


201 




Adams. 






The insurrection passing its crisis. The 
President's warning. 




3G0 


Mr. Moran to Mr. 


Sept. 
Sept. 


30 

30 




202 




The pirate Alabama . 


204 




Seward. 








229 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Oct. 


3 


State of public opinion in Europe. The 
cotton supply. 


205 


230 


do 


Oct. 


3 


The depredations committed by the pirate 
Alabama. Remonstrance addressed to 
Earl Russell 


206 


362 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Oct. 


4 


Position of military and naval affairs 


208 


367 


. T do 


Oct. 


10 


Approval of Mr. Adams's proceedings in 
regard to the 290, (Alabama.) 


208 


368 




Oct. 


10 


Failure of the projected invasion of the 
loyal States by the insurgents. Rumors 
of intervention. The Union to be main- 
tained at all hazards. 


208 


237 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Oct. 


10 


The President's proclamation of warning. 
Speeches of English statesmen. 


209 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



XI 



No. 


From whom and to 


Date. 


Subject. 


Page. 




whom. 














1862. 






238 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Oct. 


10 


Transmitting further correspondence with 
Earl Russell in regard to the outfit of 
vessels in English ports for the insur- 
gents. 


210 


369 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Oct. 


13 




211 


372 




Oct. 


18 


The attempted invasion of the loyal States 
by the iusurgents. Its failure. The 
President's proclamation of warning to 
insurrectionary States. 


211 


373 


d ° 


Oct. 


20 


Approval of Mr. Adams's remonstrance 
against the fitting out of vessels lor the 
insurgents in English ports. 


213 


374 


do.. 


Oct. 


20 


The depredations of the 290, (Alabama) 


214 


376 


d ° 


Oct. 


21 


Transmitting copy of despatch to Mr. Day- 
ton. 


215 


378 


do 


Oct. 


25 


Approval of Mr. Adams's reply to Earl Rus- 
sell. 


215 


379 


d ° 


Oct. 


25 


The President's proclamation. Progress 
of military and naval operations. 


215 


381 


d ° 


Oct. 


25 


Transmitting communications from Mr. 
Harvey in regard to the depredations of 
piratical vessels. 


216 


382 


do 


Oct. 


27 




217 


383 




Oct. 


27 


Resolutions of the New York Chamber of 
Commerce in regard to pirates from 
British ports. 


217 


242 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Oct. 


16 


Further correspondence in the case of the 
290, (Alabama.) 


219 


243 


do 


Oct. 


17 


Speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Sir G. C. 
Lewis. Lord Lyons's return. Indications 
of English sentiment in regard to inter- 
vention. 


221 


244 


do 


Oct. 


23 


The case of the 290, (Alabama) 


222 


248 




Oct. 


24 


Conversation with Earl Russell in regard 
to American affairs. Position of Great 
Britain in reference to intervention de- 
fined. 


223 


249 


do 


Oct. 


28 


Escapes from the blockade ... 


225 


250 


do.... 


Oct. 


28 


Rumored instructions to Lord Lyons prior 
to his departure. Possible complications 
in European affairs arising from the 
eastern question, the Greek insurrection, 
&c. 

Earl Russell declines a convention for the 


225 


253 


do 


Oct. 


30 


227 










emigration of free colored persons from 












the United States to British colonies. 




384 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Oct. 


30 


Breach of international obligations by the 
British gnnboat Bull Dog, in transport- 
ing officers for the 290, (Alabama.) 


22S 


385 


do 


Nov. 


3 


Position of military and naval affairs. 
Case of the Blanche at Havana. The 
emeute in the island of St. Vincent. 
The piratical acts of the 290. The elec- 
tions. 


229 


386 


......do 


Nov. 


3 


Two vessels for the insurgents reported to 
be in process of construction at Birken- 
head. 


230 



XII 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN -Continued. 



No. 


From whom and to 
whom. 


Dat€ 








1862 




387 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 


Nov. 


4 


389 


do 


Nov. 


4 


390 : 


do 


Nov. 


4 


392 


do 


Nov. 
Nov. 


in 


394 


do 


10 


395 


do 


Nov. 


10 


396 


do 


Nov. 


10 


399 


do 


Nov. 


14 


403 


..do... 


Nov. 


18 


404 


do 


Nov. 


18 


257 


Mr. Adams to Mr. 
Seward. 


Nov. 


6 


408 


Mr Seward to Mr. 
Adams. 

NOTES. 


Nov. 
1861 


21 




Mr. Seward to Lord 


Dec 


3 




Lyons. 








Do 


Dec. 
Dec. 

Dec. 


3 




Do 


11 




Lord Lyons to Mr. 


16 




Seward. 


1862 






Do 


Jan. 
Jan. 


4 




Mr. Seward to Lord 


7 




Lyons. 








Mr. Welles to Mr. 


Jan. 


4 




Seward. 








Mr. Seward to Lord 


Jan. 


7 




Lyons. 








Do 


Jan. 
Jan. 


8 




Mr. Welles to Mr. 


7 




Seward. 








Lord Lyons to Mr. 


Jan. 


9 




Seward. 








Earl Russell to Lord 


Jan. 


10 




Lyons. 








Mr. Seward to Lord 


Jan. 


13 




' Lyons. 








Lord Lyons to Mr. 


Jan. 


14 




Seward. 








Earl Russell to Lord 


Jan. 


23 




Lyons. 








Mr. F. W. Seward 


Feb. 


6 




to Lord Lyons. 








State of affairs in the United States 

European projects of intervention 

The case of the 290, (Alabama) 

The insurrection and European ideas in re- 
gard to it. 

The results of the elections 

Escapes from the blockade 

Case of the 290, (Alabama) 

English opinions. Pirates fitted out in 

Liverpool. 

Military and naval affairs 

The voluntary colonizition of free colored 

persons from the United States in' British 

colonies. 
The piratical acts of the Alabama, and their 

effects in English opinion. Supplies of 

arms for the insurgents. 
Acknowledgment of the preceding despatch, 

A British war steamer sent to cruise for 

the Alabama. 



Cases of the seamen of the British schooners 
Bevere and Louisa Agnes, captured for 
violation of the blockade. 

The same subject 

Enlistment of minors who are British sub- 
jects. 

Cases of the seamen of the Revere and Lou- 
isa Agnes. 

Death of H. R. H. Prince Albert 

Imprisonment and exaction of an oath from 

the crew of the British schooner Adeline. 

The same -- 

Death of H. R. H. the Prince Consort 

Improper treatment of the British flag in 

the prize schooner James Campbell. 
The same subject 

The same subject - 

The Trent affair 

The suspension of the habeas corpus. Case 

of William Patrick. 
The same subject . 

The Trent affair. .»* 

Correspondence of consuls in ports of insur- 
gent States. 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



XIII 



From whom and to 
whom. 



Mr. Seward to Lord 
Lyons. 

Mr. Welles to Mr. 
Seward. 

Mr. Seward to Lord 
Lyons. 

Lord Lyons to Mr. 
Seward. 



Do. 



Do. 



Mr. Seward to Lord 

Lyons. 
Memorandum of 

conversation. 
Mr. Edwards to 

Lord Lyons, 
Lord Lyons to Mr. 

Seward. 



Mr. F. W. Seward 

to Lord Lyons. 
Mr Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 
Mr. Chase to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 

Do 



Mr. Stuart to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. F. W. Seward 

to Mr. Stuart. 



Mr. Wolcott to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 

Do 

Mr. Ruggles to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 
Mr. Stuart to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 
Mr. Chase to Mr. 

Seward. 



Date. 



1862. 
Feb. 13 



Feb. 12 

Feb. 21 

Feb. 21 

Mar. 6 

Mar. 19 

April 5 

May 30 

May 30 

June 12 

June 14 

June 20 

June 14 

June 23 

June 24 

June 25 

July 1 

June 28 



Subject. 



Case of alleged maltreatment of the cap 
tain of the schooner Louisa Agnes. 



The same. 



Neutral ri°hts in maritime war 



The same. 



Cases of the seamen of the Revere and Lou- 
isa Atrnes. 

Despatch bag taken from J. P. Crosse at Bal- 
timore. 

The same subject 



Complaints of harsh treatment of British 
subjects in New Orleans. 

Shipments of coal and merchandise to 
Nassau. 

British subjects forced to enter the mili- 
tary service of the insurgents, and sub- 
sequently become prisoners of war. 

The same subject 



Exports to Nassau and other British colo- 
nial ports. 
The same subject 



Case of Peter Goolrick, British vice-consul 

at Fredericksburg. 
Case of Mr. Coppell, British acting consul 

at New Orleans. 
Case of Peter Goolrick 



British subjects, prisoners of war who had 
been forced into the military service of 
the insurgents. 



July 

July 
July 


5 

12 
3 


July 


23 


Aug. 


1 


Aug. 


18 


Aug. 


13 



The same subject . 
Exports to Nassau. 



The case of Peter Goolrick 

Report in the case of Peter Goolrick 

Restrictions on exports from New York to 

Nassau. 
The same .- 



The same 

Report of the collector of New York on the 
same subject. 



Page. 

254 

254 

256 

256 

257 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 

261 
262 
262 
263 
265 
265 
266 

266 

267 

267 
268 

273 

273 

274 

275 



XIV 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
GREAT BRITAIN— Continued. 



From whom and to 
whom. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 
Mr. Johnson to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 
Mr. F. W. Seward 

to Mr. Stuart. 
Mr. Stuart to Mr. 

Seward. 

Do 

Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 

Do 

Do 

Mr. Stuart to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 

Do 

Mr. Stuart to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 
Major Turner to 

Mr. Seward. 
Mr. Stuart to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Stuart. 

Do 

Mr. Stuart to Mr. 

Seward. 
Earl Russell to Mr. 

Stuart. 



Date. 



1862. 
Aug. 20 

Aug. 19 

Aus;. 20 



Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 
Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 
Sept. 



Sept. 11 

Sept. 11 

Sept. 13 

Sept. 18 

Sept. 17 

Sept. 25 

Sept. 25 



Oct. 
Oct. 



Sept. 22 



Subject. 



Seizure of sugars at New Orleans 

The same subject 

Only citizens of the United States liable to 

military duty. 
Acknowledging copy of a despatch of Earl 

Russell. 
Search of the vessels Annette and Dart by 

United States cruisers. 

Case of the Will-o'-the-Wisp 

The suppression of the African slave trade 

Efforts to prevent misunderstandings and 

difficulties on the Canadian frontier. 
Case of the Will-o'-the-Wisp 

British subjects called upon for military ser- 
vice. 
Exports of cotton from New Orleans 

Case of Francis Carroll 

Measures adopted to carry out the treaty for 

the suppression of the African slave trade. 

Case of Francis Carroll 

The same 

Restrictions on trade between New York 

and British West Indian ports. 
The same subject 

The same subject 

The same subject 

The same subject 



FRANCE. 



DESPATCHES. 

Mr. Dayton to Mr 

Seward. 
do 

Mr. Seward to Mr 

Dayton. 
do 

do 

Mr. Dayton to Mr 
Seward. 



1861 




Dec. 


6 


Dec. 


11 


Dec. 


26 


Dec. ' 


28 


1862 




Jan. 


2 


Jan. 


23 







The Trent affair. Views of the French gov- 
ernment. 

Indications of public opinion. General 
Scott's visit to Paris. 

Note of Mr. Thouvenel to Mr. Mercier 

Relations with Great Britain 

Approval of Mr. Dayton's proceedings 

Position of military affairs. Passage of the 

tax bill. Effect of European policy. 
The question of the blockade and of recog- 
nition under consideration. Interview 
with Mr. Thouvenel. Suggestions of a 
permanent settlement of the rights of 
neutrals. 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 

FRANCE— Continued. 



XV 



[No. 


From whom and to 


Date. 


Subject. 


Page. 




whom. 














1862. 






109 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 
Seward. 


Feb. 


3 


Suggestions for facilitating correspondence 
with French subjects in the south. 


313 


112 


do 


Feb. 


12 


State of opinion in France in regard to 
American affairs and the blockade. Con- 
versation with the Emperor. 


313 


114 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 


Feb. 


19 


Maritime law in regard to neutrals. The 
obstruction of Charleston harbor. The 
blockade. Military and naval affairs. 


315 


117 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 
Seward. 


Feb. 


21 


Progress of military affairs. Southern 
emissaries in Europe. 


317 


120 


do 


Feb. 


27 


Transmitting Mr. Billault's speech in the 
French Senate on American affairs. Indi- 
cations of a growing indisposition to 
interference. 


318 


118 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 


Feb. 


27 


Mail communication A\ith southern States . 


319 


123 


do 


March 


8 


The efficiency of the blockade. Military 
movements. 


320 


127 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 


March 18 


Suffering in France. Desire for cotton, and 


321 




Seward. 






for mail communication with the south- 
ern States. 




128 


do 


March 19 


Amelioration of maritime law in regard to 


322 










rights of neutrals. 




129 


do 


March 25 


Views of the Emperor in regard to the 


323 










progress of the war and the concession 










' * 


of belligerent rights to the insurgents. 




130 


do 


March 2( 


The President's emancipation policy, and 


324 










its effects in Europe. 




133 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 


Mar. 


26 


Sentiments of the United States government 


325 




Dayton. 






towards France. The opening of cotton 
ports. The recognition of the insurgents 
as belligerents by the European govern- 
ments. 




131 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 


Mar. 


31 


The cotton question and the question of 


327 




Seward. 






mail communication with the insurgent 
States. France declines to withdraw the 
concessio n of belligerent rights, and is 
acting in concert with England. 




136 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 


April 


1 


Siege of southern commercial cities . 


329 




Dayton. 










137 


do 


April 
April 


8 
15 


Maritime rights of neutrals 


329 


138 




The recognition of the insurgents as bellige- 


329 










rents alone prolongs the war. Reasons 












why it should be withdrawn. Survey of 












the military situation. 




139 


do 


April 


16 


The co-operation of Congress with the 
States for the gradual removal of slavery. 


333 


137 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 


April 


17 


The question of the opening of the cotton 


333 




Seward. 






ports. The concession of belligerent 
rights to the insurgents. 




141 


d ° 


April 


22 


Distress in the 'manufacturing districts of 
France for lack of cotton. Anxiety of 
the government for their relief. 


334 


141 


Mr Seward to Mr. 


April 


22 


Mr. Mercier's visit to Richmond. Position 


335 




Dayton. 






of military affairs. 





XVI 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 

FRANCE— Continued. 



No. From whom and to 
whom. 



146 



148 



149 



151 



152 
154 



158 
147 

149 



151 
154 
163 

156 
164 
160 

161 

166 



167 
170 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 

do 



...do.... 



Circular 

Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 



..do.... 
..do.... 



Mr. Dayton to Mr. 

Seward. 
do 




1862. 
April 28 

May 1 



May 5 

May 2 
May 7 



May 8 



do 

do 

Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 



Mr. Dayton to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Dayton. 
Mr. Dayton to Mr. 

Seward. 

Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 

do 

do 



Subject. 



May 


10 


May 
May 


12 

16 


May 


22 


May 


26 


June 


2 


June 


3 


June 


5 


June 


6 


June 


12 


June 
June 


13 
20 


June 
June 


20 
21 



The capture of New Orleans. The fitting 
out of piratical vessels against American 
commerce in European ports. 

The United States have a right to expect 
at least actual neutrality from the na 
tions which have proclaimed it, instead 
of aid and sympathy to the insurgents. 

Opening of the southern ports. The insur- 
rection would collapse if the expectation 
of foreign favor was withdrawn. 

Mail communication with the recovered 
portions of the insurgent States. 

Restoration of trade with New Orleans and 
other ports. All maritime nations share 
in the misfortunes produced by the war, 
and it is for the interest of all of them 
to discourage action which unnecessarily 
protracts it. 

The Mexican question 

The distress in Europe caused by the war 
would be immediately relieved if the 
European governments would cease to 
protract it by holding out delusive hopes 
to the insurgents. 

The Mexican question 

The question^of revoking the concession of 
belligerent rights to the insurgents. 

Further upon the same subject. Conver- 
sation with Mr. Thouvenel. France 
and England to act together. Europeans 
admit the ability of the United States to 
overcome the south, but question their 
ability to govern it afterwards. Reply 
of Mr Dayton. 

The same subject continued. Article from 
the Constitutionnel 

No probability of a revocation of the con- 
cession of belligerent rights at present. 

Progress of the war. Reasons for a modi- 
fication of the policy adopted by France. 
Fallacy of the assumption that the insur- 
gent States, when overpowered, cannot 
be governed. 

Relations between France and Mexico 



Position of military affairs 



The 



Effects of American news in France. 

pressure for cotton. 
The Mexican complication 

European errors about America in conse- 
quence of judging us by European stand- 
ards only. 

Approval of Mr. Dayton's course 

France and Mexico. Relations of the 
United States to both countries. 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 

FRANCE— Continued. 



XVII 



No. 


From whom and to 
whom. 


Datt 




Subject. 


Page. 






1862 








163 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 
Seward. 


June 


23 


The difficulties with foreign consuls in 
New Orleans. 


355 


166 


do 


June 


28 


Enclosing speech of M. Jules Favre in the 
chamber of deputies. 


356 


168 


d ° 


July 


9 


Public opinion in France in regard to 
American affairs. 


370 


178 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 


July 


10 


Foreign interference deprecated from mo- 
tives of prudence and humanity, not 
from apprehension The United States 
not unprepared. If it comes, Europe 
must reconquer America, or America 
become forever isolated and independent 
of Europe. European domination cannot 
be rebuilt here upon the foundation of 
African slavery. 


371 


183 


do 


July 


15 


The Comte de Paris and Due de Chartres 
and the Prince Napoleon. American 
sentiment towards the French nation 
and in regard to parties in France. 


372 


173 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 
Seward. 


July 


17. 


The prolongation of the war. The Em- 
peror's departure from Paris. 


373 


186 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 


July 


21 


Purchase of supplies by ships-of-war 


374 


178 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 
Seward. 


Aug. 


2 


Current rumors in regard to propositions 
for mediation. 


374 


180 


do 


Aug. 


4 


Intervention not immediately probable 


375 


194 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 


Aug. 


4 


Transmitting copies of correspondence in 
regard to several questions. 


375 


181 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 


Aug. 


8 




375 




Seward. 










196 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 


Aug. 


9 


Paupers from the United States in foreign 
countries. 


376 


199 


d ° 


Aug. 


13 


Progress of military affairs. Eapid enrol- 
ment of the new levies. 


376 


200 


do 


Aug. 


18 


Withdrawal of the army from the peninsula- 


377 


201 


d ° 


Aug. 


23 


Position of the United Statts in regard to 
the Franco-Mexican question. 


377 


202 


do 


Aug. 


23 


Friendly relations with the Spanish Amer- 
ican States. 


378 


203 


- 


Aug. 


23 


The war, though accompanied, like all 
wars, by alternate successes and disasters, 
steadily advancing toward the accom- 
plishment of the restoration of the Union. 
The interest of foreign nations. 


378 


205 


do 


Aug. 


25 


The preservation of the neutrality of the 
Isthmus of Panama. 


380 


185 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 

Seward. 


Aug. 


29 




380 










215 


Mr. Seward to Mr, 


Sept. 


15 


The same subject 


381 




Dayton. 










219 


do 


Sept. 


19 


The insurgents driven out of Maryland 


381 


220 


do 


Sept. 


19 


Magnitude of the voluntary armies of the 
United States. 


381 


221 


d ° 


Sept. 


20 


Applications of Europeans to enter the 
military service of the United States. 
The military organizations of the country. 


382 


222 


do 


Sept. 


24 




383 



XVIII 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 

FRANCE— Continued. 



No. 



From whom and to 
whom. 



Date. 



Subject. 



223 

224 
225 

179 

182 
183 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 

195 

197 

199 

200 



230 
206 
234 

236 

208 

211 
237 



213 

214 

240 

229 



247 

246 

245 
248 
249 



Mr. Seward to Mi- 
Day ton. 

do 

do 

Mr. Dayton to Mr 
Seward 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do.... 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Dayton. 
Mr. Dayton to Mr. 

Seward. 
Mr. Seward to Mr. 

Dayton. 

do 

Mr. Dayton to Mr. 

Seward. 
do 



Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 



Mr Dayton to Mr 

Seward. 

do 

Mr. Seward to Mr 

Dayton. 
do 



do.. 

do.. 

do.. 

do.. 

do.. 



1862. 
Sept. 24 



Sept. 
Sept. 

Aug. 

Aug. 
Aug. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 



Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 



Oct, 
Oct. 



Oct. 
Oct. 



Oct. 
Oct. 



Oct. 



Nov. 

Nov. 

Nov. 
Nov. 
Nov. 



24 
24 



28 
3 
3 
9 

10 
12 

13 

17 

18 

23 



14 
20 



Oct. 21 



23 
27 



4 

4 

4 
10 
10 



Approval of proceedings of Mr. Dayton... 



The same 

Immigration from Europe to the United 

States. 
The Isthmus of Panama 



Mexican affairs 

Acknowledgment of despatches 

Probabilities of intervention , 

Opinions of Americans abroad 

Immigration to the United States 

Relations with South American republics . 

The treaty negotiations between Mexico 
and the United States. 

Rumors of negotiations for recognition of 
the insurgents. 

Misrepresentations of events in America by 
the telegraph and press. 

Pamphlets on the American question 

International postal arrangements. Let- 
ter from the American consul at Vienna 
to Garibaldi. 

Acknowledgment of pamphlets on the 
American question. 

Case of Mr. Moquardt at Vera Cruz 



No mediation or compromise admissible. 
Exhaustion of the energies of the insur- 
rection 

Recall of the American consul at Vienna .. 

The President's proclamation of warning 
to the insurgent States. 

Retirement of Mr. Thouvenel and appoint- 
ment of Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys. 

The project of recognition of the insurgents. 
Condition and prospects of the govern- 
ment contrasted with those of the insur- 
gents. No peace admissible at the cost 
of a single acre of the Union. 

The change in the French ministry 



Mexican affairs . 
Military events 



Approval of Mr. Dayton's proceedings. 
Satisfaction with Mr. Thouvenel's ex- 
planations. 

The change in the French ministry for 
foreign affairs. 

The proclamation of warning, and European 
opinions in reference to it. 

The position of military affairs _. 

The change in the French ministry 

The war in Mexico - --- 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 
FRANCE— Continued. 



XIX 



No. 


From whom and to 


Date. 


Subject. 


Page. 




whom. 














186 


2. 






220 


Mr. Dayton to Mr. 
Seward. 


Nov. 


6 


Conversations with Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys 
in reference to American affairs. Posi- 
tion of France in regard to intervention 
defined. 


404 


258 


Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Dayton. 

NOTES. 


Nov. 


21 


Acknowledgment of the preceding de- 
spatch. 


405 






1861. 








Mr. Mercier to Mr. 


Dec. 


7 


Permission to French subjects to leave New 


406 




Seward. 






Orleans. 






Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Mercier. 


Dec. 


11 


The same subj ect 


406 










Mr. Mercier to Mr. 
Seward 


Dec. 


23 


The same subject 


407 










Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Mercier. 


Dec. 31 
1862. 


The same subject 


406 










Mr. Mercier to Mr. 


Jan. 


— 


Postal communication with French subjects 


408 




Seward. 






in the blockaded ports. 






Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Mercier. 


Jan. 


10 




408 










Mr. Thouvenel to 


Jan. 


19 


The communication from the French gov- 


409 




Mr. Mercier. 






ernment in reference to the Trent affair. 






Do 


Jan. 


23 


The obstruction of the harbor of Charleston 


409 




Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Mercier. 


Fen. 


7 




410 










Do 


Feb. 


10 


Postal communication with French subjects 
in blockaded ports. 


411 










Do 


Feb. 


20 


The obstruction of Charleston harbor ■>■ 


411 




Mr. Pelissier to Mr. 


Mar. 


3 


Case of Tunstall and Myers at Tangier ; Mr. 


413 




Thouvenel. 






De Long's circular, and Mr. Pelissier's 
reply. 






Mr. Thouvenel to 
Mr. Mercier. 


Mar. • 


13 




414 










Do.. 


Mar. 
Feb. 


20 

27 




415 




The Acting Consul 
Gener'l of France 




415 














to Mr. Thouve- 












nel. 












Mr. Seward to Mr. 
Mercier. 


April 


4 




417 










Memorandum 


April 
May 


12 


The same subject 


417 




Mr. Mercier to Mr. 


16 


The tariff and its effects upon French silk 


417 




Seward. 






manufactures. 






Mr. Seward to Mr. 


May 


20 




419 




Mercier. 












Do. 


May 
May 


26 




419 




Mr. Chase to Mr. 


26 


The same subject. Note to the chairman 


420 




Seward. 






of Committee of Ways and Means. 






Count Mejan to Mr. 


May 


30 


Condition of New Orleans and Louisiana. 


420 




Thouvenel. 






The cotton supply. 






Memorandum 


May 


31 


Conversation in regard to alleged irregu- 
larities and severities of Major General 
Butler at New Orleans. 


423 




Mr. F. W. Seward 


June 


12 


Customs regulations in regard to wine and 


424 




to Mr. Mercier. 






ardent spirits. 






Mr Chase to Mr. 


June 


6 


The same subject. Circular to collectors .. 


424 




Seward. 











XX 



LIST OF DOCUMENTS. 

FRANCE— Continued. 



No. 



From whom and to 
whom. 



Mr. Mercier to Mr. 
Seward. 

Vicomte Treilhard 
to Mr. Seward. 

Mr. Seward to Vi- 
comte Treilhard. 

Vicomte Treilhard 
to Mr. Seward. 

Mr. Seward to Vi- 
comte Treilhard. 

Mr. Seward to Vi- 
comte Treilhard. 

Mr. Johnson to Mr. 
Seward. 

Mr. F. W. Seward 
to Vicomte Treil- 
hard. 

Mr. Watson to Mr. 
Seward. 

Vicomte Treilhard 
to Mr. Seward. 

Mr. Thouvenel to 
Mr. Mercier. 

Mr. Seward to Vi- 
comte Treilhard. 

Mr. Thouvenel to 
Mr. Mercier. 

Vicomte Treilhard 
to Mr. Seward. 



Date. 



1862. 

July 31 

Aug. 8 

Aug. 9 

Aug. 12 

Aug. 13 

Aug. 20 

Aug. 19 

Aug. 27 

Aug. 23 

Aug. 29 



Sept. 4 
Sept. 19 
Oct. 6 



Subject. 



Deposits of specie made by French subjects 

with their consul at New Orleans. 
Case of Edward Dupasseur & Co 

The same subject.... 

Communication between the French lega- 
tion and the French consulate at Rich- 
mond. 

The same subject 

Case of Edward Dupasseur &Co _.. 

The same subject 

Communications between the French lega- 
tion and the French consulate at Rich- 
mond. 

The same subject 

Acts of Major General Butler at New Or- 
leans. 
The same subject. 

The same subject 

Export of cotton from Louisiana 

Cases of Richard Aldige' & Co., Messrs. 
Goodchaux, Charles Hauspe, Paul Vidal, 
G. Levois, L. C. Chauvin, concerning 
sugars. 



426 
427 
429 
430 

430 
430 

431 
432 

432 
433 
433 
434 
435 
435 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



GREAT BRITAIN. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 74.] Legation of the United States, 

London, November 22, 1861. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the reception of the missing" despatch (No. 
109) of the 23d of October from the department, which relates, as I had 
conjectured, to the case of Mr. Bunch, the British consul at Charleston. In 
•conformity with the instructions therein contained, I have addressed a note- 
to Earl Russell on the subject, a copy of which I have the honor to transmit 
herewith. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, November 21, 1861. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the 
United States, has the honor to inform the right honorable Earl Russell, her 
Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, that he has now 
just received the answer of his government to the note addressed by his 
lordship to the undersigned on the 9th of September last, touching certain 
representations made by him, under instructions from his government, of 
the conduct of Mr. Robert Bunch, her Majesty's consul at Charleston, and 
he now proceeds to submit the substance of the same to his lordship's con- 
sideration. 

And first, it is a source of satisfaction to the undersigned to be able to 
say that the President finds that that part of Mr. Bunch's proceedings which 
was most calculated to offend the United States, and to which exception 
was more especially taken, has no support in the communication of his 
lordship to which it is now proposed to reply. If it be true that Mr. Bunch 
made any assurances, direct or implied, to the insurgents in the United States 
of a disposition on the part of her Majesty's government to recognize them 
as a state, it is now clear that he acted utterly without authority. What- 
ever is the responsibility which may be supposed to attach to Mr. Bunch 
for such an act, there is no disposition left to assign the smallest share of 
it to the source to which he is indebted for his official position. 

But, though there is great cause for gratification in this view of his lord- 
ship's note, the undersigned is coustrained to admit that in another the 



President has received it with somewhat less of satisfaction. It would 
appear that her Majesty's government has avowed that Mr. Bunch did act 
under instructions so far as his conduct was known to the foreign depart- 
ment, and that that action went to the extent of communicating to the per- 
sons exercising authority in the so-called Confederate States the desire of 
her Majesty's government that the second, third, and fourth articles of the 
declaration of Paris should be observed by these States in the prosecution 
of the hostilities in which they were engaged. The undersigned regrets to 
be obliged to submit to his lordship's consideration the fact that Mr. Bunch 
received from the government of the United States a recognition exclusively 
confined to the performance of consular duties, and that in proceeding to 
execute others which very nearly approach, if they do not absolutely belong 
to, those of diplomatic agents only, he seems to them to have transcended 
the just limits of any authority which they had ever consented to vest in 
him. 

Well aware of the great difficulties necessarily in the way of an intimate 
acquaintance with the laws of a foreign state, the undersigned will not 
pretend to claim of her Majesty's government that it should be familiar 
with those of the United States. But it becomes his duty to point out the 
fact that Mr. Bunch, in accepting the post which he did under her Majesty's 
authority, voluntarily made himself amenable, at least during the period of 
his residence, to the authority of those laws. When, therefore, he received 
a direction from the foreign department to do an act which was not known 
by it to be a violation of one of those laws, but which he was bound to 
know to be such, his duty clearly should have been, instead of proceeding 
at once in contravention of the law, to apprise his government of the posi- 
tion he was placed in, and to await their decision after a full consideration 
of the question involved. The statute to which allusion is made forbids, 
under a heavy penalty, any person not specially appointed, or duly author- 
ized or recognized by the President, whether citizen or denizen, privileged 
or unprivileged, from counselling or advising, aiding or assisting in any 
political correspondence with the government of any foreign state whatever, 
with an intent to influence the measures of any foreign government, or of 
any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies 
with the United States, or to defeat the measures of their government. 

Neither is the undersigned so fortunate as to see in this proceeding of 
Mr. Bunch, thus shown to be on his part a wanton violation of the law of 
the United States, a sufficient justification or excuse in the consideration 
that Great Britain is deeply interested in the maintenance of the articles 
which provide that the flag covers the goods, and that the goods of a neu- 
tral taken on board a belligerent ship are not liable to confiscation. It is 
enough to say, on this subject, that in the view of nearly all civilized 
nations the proper agents to make known such wishes are the diplomatic 
not the consular agents of a government, and that the only authority in the 
United States to which any diplomatic communications whatever can be 
made is the government of the United States itself. The undersigned is 
too confident of the soundness of the principles which have ever actuated 
the government of Great Britain in all its relations with foreign countries 
not to affirm that it would never give countenance for a single moment to 
the application of any other doctrine than this to the management of its 
own affairs. 

Least of all will the undersigned be permitted to admit that communi- 
cation by Mr. Bunch, while exercising consular privileges granted to him 
with the consent of the United States, with insurgents endeavoring to 
overthrow the government, can be justified by the declaration of her Ma- 
jesty's ministers that they have already recognized the belligerent character 



of those insurgents, and will continue to so consider them. It is, indeed, 
true that her Majesty's proclamation has been issued for the regulation of all 
her own subjects, and that it has been interpreted by her government as 
recognizing the insurgents as a belligerent. But it is equally true that the 
government of the United States declines to accept any such interpretation 
as modifying in the least degree its own rights and powers, or the obliga- 
tions of all friendly nations towards it. 

Still adhering to this position, the under.signed is instructed to announce, 
as the result of the most calm and impartial deliberation upon the question 
thus submitted for its decision, the necessity which his government feels 
itself under to revoke the exequatur of Mr. Bunch. Neither has this step 
been taken without the pressure of a strong conviction that, independently 
of the facts already alleged, his personal conduct, even down to the time 
this correspondence has been going on, as well as before it commenced, has 
been that, not of a friend of the government, nor even of a neutral, but of a 
partisan of faction and disunion. 

In conclusion, it is with much pleasure that the undersigned has it in his 
power to convey to Earl Russell the sense entertained by the President of 
the action of her Majesty's representative at Washington. It is felt to be 
due to him as well as to his government to say that in all his proceedings 
he has carefully respected the sovereignty and the rights of the United 
States, and that the arrangements which have been made by him, with the 
entire approval of the government, for establishing a communication between 
his government and its consuls, through the national vessels of Great 
Britain entering blockaded ports, without carrying passengers or private 
letters, bid fair to preclude all necessity for a recurrence of such proceed- 
ings as those which have necessitated this painful correspondence. 

Having thus performed the duty imposed upon him of announcing that the 
exequatur of Mr. Bunch has been withdrawn because his services are no 
longer agreeable to the government of the United States, the undersigned is 
further instructed to say that the consular privileges thus taken from him 
will be cheerfully allowed to any successor whom her Majesty may be 
pleased to appoint, against whom no grave personal objections are known 
to exist. 

The undersigned has the honor to renew to Earl Russell the assurances 
of the highest consideration with which he is his lordship's most obedient 
servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Hon. Earl Russell, Sfc, Sfc, 8fC. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 15.] Legation of the United States, 

London, November 22, 1861. 

Sir : I have the honor to transmit a copy of a note of Lord Russell, dated 
the 15th of this month, in reply to mine addressed to him on the day previous, 
on the subject of the intercepted bag of Mr. Bunch, a copy of which was sent 
forward with my despatch to the department, No. %1, dated the 14th instant. 

I have taken no special notice of the closing observations, for the reason, 
1st, that his lordship transfers the discussion to Washington ; and 2d, that 
in another note addressed to him, under instructions, on the case of Mr, 



6 

Bunch, allusion is incidentally made to the subject as having been already 
arranged between Lord Lyons and yourself. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Earl Bussell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, November 15, 1861. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 14th 
instant, which confirms the statements you made to me orally on Wednesday 
last. 

I have only to add that, believing the cause of the stoppage of Mr. Bunch's 
bag to have been a bona fide suspicion on the part of the United States gov- 
ernment that the bag might contain despatches from the so-styled Confederate 
States, I did not think it necessary to address Lord Lyons further on the 
subject. 

With respect to your remarks on the subject of correspondence of British 
subjects in the southern States, the inconveniences consequent upon the 
present state of things are so great that her Majesty's government are obliged, 
seriously, to consider whether means may not be found, compatible with the 
vigorous prosecution of the war, by which those inconveniences may be 
remedied, at least in part. 

Her Majesty's government are, accordingly, occupied in devising measures 
which, when matured, may afford some hope of redress for the injuries 
sustained by British subjects in consequence of the present state of things. 
The measures to be proposed will be communicated, as soon as they are 
matured, to the Secretary of State of the United States by Lord Lyons. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., 8fC., 8fc., Sf-c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 81.] Legation of the United States, 

London, November 29, 1861. 

Sir : I have the honor to transmit herewith the copy of a note addressed 
by Earl Russell to me on the 26th instant, in reply to mine on the subject 
of the revocation of Mr. Bunch's exequatur. I likewise subjoin a copy of 
my note addressed to him in answer. I have confined myself almost entirely 
to those portions in which his lordship calls my positions into question, and 
have left his declarations of future intentions to be dealt by the government 
if it be deemed worth while to continue the discussion. Other matters are 
so constantly occurring of a more imperative nature as to render this of 
very secondary consequence. It is plain, from the turn which has been taken 
in the newspapers of this morning, that the law officers of the crown have 
modified their original position so far as to deny the right of the United 
States government to take out persons when they do not take papers and 



things. In other words, Great Britain would have been less offended if the 
United States had insulted her a great deal more. There is little reason to 
doubt that the same steamer which bears this will carry out a demand for 
an apology and the restoration of the men. I confess that the turn things 
have taken has given me great anxiety for the fate of my unhappy country. 
But I shall await with resignation the instructions which will probably close 
my. mission. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretanj of State, Washington, D. C. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, November 26, 1861. 

The undersigned, her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign 
affairs, has received, with much concern, the note which Mr. Adams, envoy 
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at this court, 
addressed to him on the 21st instant, in which he announces the result of 
what Mr. Adams states to have been the calm and impartial deliberation by 
the United States government upon the question submitted for its decision 
the necessity which that government feels itself under to revoke the ex- 
equatur of Mr. Robert Bunch, her Majesty's consul at Charleston. 

In discussing this matter, the undersigned will put aside all allegations 
of the unknown letter-writer concerning Mr. Bunch's supposed conversation 
referred to in a former communication of Mr. Adams ; for it may now be 
affirmed that those allegations, unsupported as they are by any proof, were 
entirely unfounded. 

Neither will the undersigned take any notice of the charge made against 
Mr. Bunch that his conduct has been that of a partisan of faction and dis- 
union, because that charge is equally unsupported by any proof whatever, 
and is equally unfounded. 

The withdrawal of Mr. Bunch's exequatur does not, however, appear to 
rest upon these unfounded allegations, nor on these groundless charges. It 
is said to rest upon a law of the United States, of which it is said her 
Majesty's government might pardonably have been ignorant, but which Mr. 
Bunch was bound to have brought to their notice. 

This law, as Mr. Adams affirms, forbids, "under a heavy penalty, any person 
not specially appointed, or duly authorized by the President, whether citizen 
or denizen, privileged or unprivileged, from counselling, advising, aiding, or 
assisting in any political correspondence with the government of any foreign 
state whatever, with an intent to influence the measures of any foreign 
government, or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or 
controversies with the United States, or : to defeat the measures of their 
government." 

Taking Mr. Adams's description of this statute as full and accurate, the 
undersigned has to remark that the statute seems to have been enacted for 
the purpose of preventing citizens or denizens of the United States from 
aiding or counselling foreign governments with regard to their disputes 
with the United States. 

If this be so, Mr. Bunch, having no mission or instruction to aid or counsel 
a foreign state at enmity with the United States, and not having done so, 
would have no reason to suppose that a statute made "alio intuitu" could 



be so construed as to apply to his execution of the instructions he had re- 
ceived from her Majesty's government ; and therefore there could be no 
reason why he should have brought to the notice of her Majesty's govern- 
ment an United States statute which had no bearing whatever upon any- 
thing which he was instructed to do. 

The undersigned has further to remark that the United States government, 
by their quotation of the statute in question as the foundation on which 
they rest their complaint against Mr. Bunch, seem distinctly to admit that 
the government of the Confederate States at Richmond is, as regards the 
United States, "the government of a foreign state " — an admission which 
goes further than any acknowledgment with regard to those States which 
her Majesty's government have hitherto made. But if the Confederate 
States are, as Mr. Adams's note implies as regards the United States, a 
foreign state, then the President of the United States has no competence, 
one way or the other, with respect to the functions of the consuls of other 
governments in that foreign state, and the exequaturs of such consuls can 
be granted or withdrawn only by the government of such foreign state, for 
the Confederate States cannot be at one and the same time " a foreign state " 
and part of the territory of the United States. 

But there is a further question raised by the United States government 
which is of deep and urgent importance. Mr. Adams is instructed to say 
that any communication to be addressed to the government of the so-called 
Confederate States respecting the goods of a belligerent on board of neutral 
ships, or the goods of a neutral on board of belligerent ships, should have been 
made by diplomatic and not by consular agents ; and that the " only au- 
thority in the United States to which any diplomatic communication what- 
ever can be made is the government of the United States itself." 

Mr. Adams must be aware that this assertion raises grave questions both 
of fact and of law. In the first place, when her Majesty's government are 
gravely told that an application to the Confederate government for redress 
ought to be made through the President of the United States, they might 
well ask whether such a position is seriously laid down, and whether the 
President of the United States can affirm that in the present condition of 
things he has the power to give effect to any such application which might 
be made to him. For instance, a British subject at New Orleans or Galves- 
ton might be carried away by force to serve with the confederate troops; 
could the President of the United States set him free ? might he not be killed 
in battle by a ball or a bullet from the United States army as the only 
release he could obtain from President Lincoln from his compulsory service ? 
Again: the private debts due to a British subject in Louisiana or in Arkansas 
may be confiscated and paid into the public treasury of the State by a law 
or decree of the so-styled Confederate Congress ; could the President or 
Secretary of State of the United States obtain the recovery of these sums; 
or could he secure immunity from confiscation for the landed property of 
British subjects in the eleven Confederate States ? 

If the President of the United States cannot do this, the course of pro- 
ceeding suggested by Mr. Adams would be altogether illusory. 

But next as to a question of international law. Her Majesty's govern- 
ment hold it to be an undoubted principle of international law, that when 
the persons or the property of the subjects or citizens of a state are injured 
by a de facto government, the state so aggrieved has a right to claim from 
the de facto government redress and reparation ; and also that in cases of 
apprehended losses or injury to their subjects, states may lawfully enter into 
communication with de facto governments to provide for the temporary 
security of the persons and property of their subjects. 

Acting upon this last-mentioned principle, her Majesty's government 



9 

entered into concert with the government of the Emperor of the French in 
regard to certain articles of the declaration of Paris. 

The result was an instruction which was to be carried into effect by the 
British and French consuls at Charleston, and they both executed their 
commission unostentatiously but effectively. 

It may be necessary in future, for the protection of the interests of her 
Majesty's subjects in the vast extent of country which resists the authority 
of the United States, to have further communications both with the central 
authority at Richmond and with the governors of the separate States, and 
in such cases such communications will continue to be made, but such com- 
munications will not imply any acknowledgment of the confederates as an 
independent state. 

The undersigned has read with sincere pleasure the testimony voluntarily 
borne by the President of the United States to the care with which Lord 
Lyons has respected the sovereignty and the rights of the United States, 
and the undersigned feels it right to say that in very difficult circumstances 
the conduct of Mr. Adams, while upholding the authority and interests of 
his own government, has been such as to acquire the esteem and respect of 
the government of her Majesty and of the British nation. 

The undersigned requests Mr. Adams to accept the assurance of his high- 
est consideration. 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, fyc, SfC, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, November 29, 1861. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the 
United States, has the honor to acknowledge the reception of a note from 
the right honorable Earl Russell, her Majesty's principal secretary of state 
for foreign affairs, dated the 26th instant, in answer to a previous one of 
his own, dated the 21st instant, announcing the decision of the government 
of the United States to withdraw the exequatur of Mr. Bunch, her Majesty's 
consul at Charleston, in South Carolina. The undersigned will do himself 
the honor to transmit his lordship's note for the information of his govern- 
ment by the first opportunity. 

The undersigned, disclaiming any desire to continue discussion upon a 
painful topic one moment longer than a necessity for it shall continue to 
exist, yet feels as if he could not, in justice to himself as well as to his own 
government, omit this opportunity to explain some passages of his former 
note, which appear to him to have been in a degree misunderstood by Earl 
Russell. He confesses himself at a loss to comprehend in what manner he 
should have been so unfortunate in his use of language as to give ground 
for his lordship's statement " that the United States government, by their 
quotation of the statute to which reference has been made as the foundation 
on which they rest their complaint against Mr. Bunch, seem deliberately to 
admit that the government of the Confederate States at Richmond is, as 
regards the United States, the government of a foreign state — an admission 
which goes further than any acknowledgment with regard to those States 
which her Majesty's government have hitherto made." If the undersigned 
have given just cause for any construction of the action of his government 
approximating to that indicated in the preceding extract from his lordship's 
note, then has he indeed committed, in his estimation, a most grave mistake. 
But on a careful re-examination of his note of the 21st, the undersigned must 



10 

be permitted to say that he has found some difficulty in perceiviug anything 
that appears to him to be ambiguity in his meaning. He discovers only 
one government of a foreign state alluded to, and that is obviously her 
Majesty's government. The other party, in his own mind, were the rebellious 
insurgents in arms against the authority of the United States, which he was 
very far from characterizing in the manner indicated by his lordship. The 
purpose of the law seems to the undersigned to have been severely to pun- 
ish all persons, whether native or foreign, citizen or privileged, who know- 
ingly made themselves instruments of foreign states to foment factious dis- 
turbances within the United States. It appears to have been enacted during 
the troubled period of the French revolution, when interference with the 
domestic affairs of neighboring nations was an avowed principle of action, 
and was therefore boldly acted upon even by the recognized agents of the 
French authorities. The undersigned, therefore, in applying the principle 
of the law in a mitigated form to Mr. Bunch and his alleged intermixture 
with the disputes and controversies going on within the United States, 
surely cannot have made so great a mistake as to have assumed that he 
was dealing with "the government of a foreign state." He has considered 
Mr. Bunch as an officer of her Majest3''s government, formerly recognized 
by the government of the United States for certain purposes of commerce, 
who has been engaged in political correspondence as well with his own 
government as with rebellious insurgents in the United States for purposes 
foreign from those which were assigned at the time he received his author- 
ity, and for that reason that he has knowingly violated the law. At the 
same time the undersigned took great care in expressing his firm belief that 
her Majesty's government, in directing their agent in the manner indicated, 
could not have been aware of the nature and character of that law — a belief 
which he is happy to find, by his lordship's present mode of considering it, 
to have been well founded. 

But much as the undersigned found of difficulty in regard to the mis- 
conception he has been so unfortunate as to originate in his lordship's mind 
of this view of a law of his own country, he has been still more embar- 
rassed to learn the fact that in his statement of what appeared to his mind 
true in its application to all governments, and undeniable in respect to the 
government of the United States, he has not enjoyed the satisfaction of his 
lordship's concurrence of opinion. This statement was that " the only au- 
thority in the United States to which any diplomatic communication can be 
made is the government of the United States." If the undersigned had 
been led in any way to vary this proposition he would have deemed himself 
to have gone much further in the road to recognition of " the government of 
a foreign state" within the United States than he did in that mistakenly 
attributed to him by his lordship. Surely it could not have been his lord- 
ship's intention to present the proposition that the same diplomatic agent of 
a foreign power can be accredited to the government of a country and to 
the self-constituted authorities of a portion of the people who are * * * 
waging war to overthrow it. Applying this argument to the question of Mr. 
Bunch, his case resolves itself into this : That holding his authority to act in 
an official relation as an officer of a foreign government from the recognition 
of the authorities of the United States, they are expected to acknowledge 
his right whilst acting in this capacity, at the same time to treat with any 
of their own citizens who defy their authority whenever it may be deemed 
advisable by that government. Surely such a proposition, if accepted, 
would seem to undermine the foundations of sound international relation- 
ship all over the world. Surely no government, entertaining a proper degree 
of self-respect, would consent for a moment to receive any representative of 
a foreign nation if his first act might be to attempt to undermine the au- 



11 

\ 

thority to which he had been accredited by recognizing for any purpose the 
validity of a domestic antagonism within its limits. 

The undersigned is not insensible to the force of his lordship's argument 
in regard to the necessity imposed upon it of protecting the interests of 
British subjects in those regions where the authority of the United States 
is suspended, as well as the difficulty of calling upon the government of the 
United States to make good the damage that might ensue from the acts of 
persons now in armed resistance. Doubtless it must have been under con- 
siderations like these that her Majesty's government was induced to release 
that of the United States from responsibility for such reclamations by adopt- 
ing the policy of granting to the insurgents the rights of a belligerent. 
Without entering into the wide field of discussion presented by the argu- 
ments of his lordship, the undersigned contents himself with the remark 
that whatever may be the course of action her Majesty's government 
deems proper to lay down for itself in regulating its relations with the insur- 
gent forces in the United States, it will scarcely be disposed to require of 
the government of the United States that it should recognize the agents 
through whom they may be carried on. The objection to Mr. Bunch's ac- 
tion is that, whilst he has been enjoying, as consul of her Majesty in the 
United States, the advantages of a solemn recognition of the United States, 
he has been engaged in official proceedings in violation of the law, as well as- 
outside of any authority with which they ever consented that he should be 
vested. 

That the latter part of the statement is that the fact would scarcely. seem 
to admit of the possibility of a doubt. But inasmuch as the undersigned 
is not altogether sure that he has placed the matter so fully before his lord- 
ship as his duty to his country seems to him to require, he trusts he may be 
permitted to enlarge upon it a little further. The position of Mr. Bunch, in 
regard to the United States, had been exclusively that of a consul of a for- 
eign nation at a commercial port. That such a position does not of itself 
involve the right of diplomatic negotiation with the recognizing govern- 
ment, much less with any subordinate authority, is too well established by 
law to need further elucidation. The only question that remains for 
consideration is * * * then whether the authority actually vested in 
Mr. Bunch by her Majesty's government to enter into communication with 
the insurgents in the United States touching certain articles of the declara- 
tion of Paris to which their acquiescence was to be obtained was of a diplo- 
matic or purely of a consular nature. The proper answer to this is to be 
found in an appeal to the mode in which, from its very commencement, the 
declaration of Paris has been permitted to take its shape. In its origin it 
was the result of a conference of the accredited envoys of the great powers, 
and in all the later steps taken to secure the acquiescence of different na- 
tions, including the United States, the agency used has been that of the 
customary diplomatic representatives. It therefore admits of no doubt, in 
the mind of the undersigned, that the declaration of Paris is a pure diplo- 
matic act, and that all negotiations since carried on to extend its authority, 
including that which the undersigned himself had the honor to carry on 
with his lordship for a time, bear the same exclusive character. It is, then, 
plain to the mind of the undersigned that the government of the United 
States in objecting to the assumption by an officer of a foreign government 
recognized by it only as vested with the authority of a consul of diplomatic 
authority to treat within the limits of the United States, and without its 
knowledge or consent, with persons acting as an armed resistance to it, has 
justification fully sufficient to sustain its decision to withdraw the formal 
act of recognition of such officer. To suppose it capable of a different 



12 

course would seem to be to condemn it as unworthy of the character for 
honor and independence to which it has ever endeavored to aspire. 

In conclusion, the undersigned desires to express his personal obligations 
to Earl Russell for the friendly notice he has been pleased to take of his 
labors in the arduous and difficult mission with which he has been charged. 
It gives him great pleasure to be able on his part to testify to the uniform 
courtesy and good will with which he has been treated in all his relations 
with her Majesty's government. 

The undersigned prays Earl Russell to receive the assurances of his most 
distinguished consideration. 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, Sf-c, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 143.] Department of State, 

Washington, December 13, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch of November 22, No. 74, has been received. 
Your note to her Britannic Majesty's principal secretary for foreign affairs 
■on the subject of the withdrawal of the exequatur of the late consul at 
Charleston is approved. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 144.] Department of State, 

Washington, December 13, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch of November 22, No. 75, was duly received. 
We shall hear what Lord Lyons may have to say to us on the subject of 
the facilities for correspondence of British subjects residing in the insur- 
rectionary parts of the country with pleasure, and with a sincere desire to 
<do whatever may be possible consistently with the safety and welfare of the 
United States. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
-Charles Francis x^dams, Esq., Sfc, Sf-c, SfC 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seivard. 
[Extract ] 



INo. 95.] Legation of the United States, 

London, December 27, 1861. 

Sir: Although many of the leading presses zealously continue their efforts 
to keep up the war feeling here against the United States, I think the signs 



13 

are clear of a considerable degree of reaction and a growing hope that the 
friendly relations between the two countries may be preserved. Of course 
everybody is waiting to hear of the issue of the demands transmitted by 
the Europa. Much gratification has been expressed at the publication of 
the despatch addressed by M. Thouvenel to the government through M. 
Mercier, as also the treatment of the question of the Trent by M. Hautefeuille. 
Indeed, the harmony of sentiment on this subject is so general throughout 
Europe as to have very much increased the confidence of the British ministry 
in their position. They are even disposed to put up, with unusual patience, 
with the severe reflections made on the past policy of Great Britain in con- 
sideration of the substantial advantage they gain in the immediate dispute. 
Unquestionably the view of all other countries is that the opportunity is 
most fortunate for obtaining new and large modifications of international 
law which will hereafter materially restrain the proverbial tendency of this 
country on the ocean. My own opinions to the same effect have been already 
so freely expressed that it is needless, if it were not also superfluous, to 
repeat them, especially now that the decision is probably complete. 

But even if it should be possible to escape the immediate danger from the 
present difficulty, my confidence in the tendency of things towards peace in 
this country has been so much shaken as to make the prospects for the 
future quite doubtful. Parliament will probably assemble somewhat earlier 
than has been anticipated, perhaps by the 16th of January. It will then be 
impossible to avoid a general expression of opinion upon American affairs. 
Of what a character that will be, some idea may be formed from the various 
addresses made during the recess by members to their respective constit- 
uencies. As usual in all deliberative assemblies having freedom of speech, 
the popular tendency will be towards the most positive doctrines. The war 
party will in this particular enjoy the advantage, which they will not fail 
to use with effect against the ministry of Lord Palmerston, especially if 
there be the smallest opportunity of reproaching it for any concession on a 
point of honor. Even if in this particular they should find it difficult to make 
an issue, they will not fail to go on and urge the application of a limit to 
the law of blockade, as well as to the refusal to recognize a de facto govern- 
ment. In both these cases the ground has been already broken by the 
public press, and by particular members. So that although Lord Russell, in 
a portion of his latest conversation with me, affirmed that we should have 
full opportunity given to us of trying our experiment of overcoming the 
rebellion before action on their part, it is not quite clear to my mind that he 
will very long retain the power to make his words good. I have felt it my 
duty at this time to enter into such speculations, solely because I think I 
ought to prepare your mind for the possibilities that may follow a settle- 
ment of the immediate difficulty. Neither do I wish to undervalue the 
amount of sympathy and good will that may be brought into play to avert 
the threatened danger. It is from the friends of our government that I 
gather most of my conclusions. And one of them is that nothing but very 
marked evidences of progress towards success will restrain for any length 
of time the hostile tendencies developed by the case of the Trent. 

I am happy to say that I have seen and conferred repeatedly both with Bishop 
Mcllvain and Mr. Weed. I think their services have already been of mate- 
rial use, and that they will be of still more hereafter if peaceful relations 
should be preserved. The industry of the confederate emissaries in poisoning 
the sources of opinion, as well as in disseminating wholly erroneous notions 
of the nature of the struggle in America, has been unvaried. And where 
the seed has fallen on favorable ground it has germinated strongly and 
fructified well. But the effort to conceal the true issue and to substitute a 
false one has failed. The progress of affairs in America is daily more and 



14 

more exposing its real character. Much as the commercial and manufactu- 
ring- interests may be disposed to view the tariff as the source of all our 
evils, and much as the aristocratic classes may endeavor to make democracy 
responsible for them, the inexorable logic of events is contradicting each 
and every assertion based on these notions, and proving that the American 
struggle is, after all, the ever-recurring one in human affairs between right 
and wrong, between labor and capital, between liberty and absolutism. 
When such an issue comes to be presented to the people of Great Britain, 
stripped of all the disguises which have been thrown over it, it is not diffi- 
cult to predict at least which side it will not consent to take. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hen. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, 

Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 102.] Legation of the United States, 

London, January 11, 1862. 

Sir : I have now received copies of all the papers connected with the affair 
of the Trent. The result is in the highest degree satisfactory. 

I need not add my testimony to the general tribute of admiration of the 
skilful manner in which the various difficulties and complications attending 
this unfortunate business have been met or avoided. Thus far, in spite of 
all efforts sedulously made to the contrary, the effect on public opinion has 
been favorable. 

The publication of the foreign correspondence during the past season, as 
well as of the latest despatches, has materially corrected the old notion of 
determined hostility on your part to Great Britain, which has been used so 
mischievously for months past. On the whole, I think, I may say with con- 
fidence that matters look better. Last Saturday I called, at the request of 
Lord Russell, at the foreign office, when his lordship read to me the despatch 
which he was then on the point of sending off to Lord Lyons. We there- 
upon exchanged congratulations on the complete restoration of friendty rela- 
tions between the two countries. 

Since that time not only the correspondence already published in America 
has been printed by authority in the London Gazette, but the later papers 
written on this side, including the very last, being that which was read to 
me. You will doubtless notice with some curiosity the earlier one, being 
Lord Russell's note of the substance of the conversation held with me on 
the 19th ultimo, at the time I read to him your confidential despatch to me 
of the 30th of November. The circumstances attending that affair have 
given rise to so much speculation, both hei'e and on the continent, and have 
led to such sharp controversy in the London newspapers, that it may be ad- 
visable that the government should understand them correct!} 7 . Considering 
the paper* as confidential, of course I took good care that no knowledge of 
its substance or of the substance of the conference should be extended be- 
yond the limits of this legation. Yet the fact is certain that on the strength 
of an impression of the occurrence of some such event the funds rose one 
per cent, on the very next day. 

So general was the idea that the Morning Post, a paper considered here, 
and not without reason, as deriving information from high sources, thought 
proper to notice the rumor on the 21st December, and deliberately to affirm 



15 

that though a despatch had indeed been communicated, yet that it had ref- 
erence to other unimportant matters, and in no way related to the difficulty 
about the Trent. Some days later, however, in a summary of the events 
relating 1 to that case published in the Observer, a weekly paper published 
on Sunday morning, supposed also to be now and then supplied with au- 
thentic information, I noticed at the conclusion a tolerably correct version 
of the substance of that despatch. After the appearance of that, I had no 
hesitation in disclosing to persons with whom I conversed my knowledge of 
its correctness. It was, then, with no little surprise that they perceived last 
week, when intelligence was received from America of the existence of such 
a paper, a formal denial in the Post that any such paper had ever been com- 
municated to the British government. No longer able to deny the existence 
of it, the rfext step was to affirm that I must have suppressed it. And, not 
satisfied with that, the same press went on to supply a motive for doing so, 
in the fact that certain American parties had about the same time appeared 
in the market buying up stock, which was the cause of the rise in the funds 
already alluded to. Of course the insinuation was that I was engaged in a 
heavy stockjobbing operation for my own benefit and that of my friends. 
The motive for this concoction of a series of falsehoods which were inevi- 
tably to be exposed in a very short space of time, seemed difficult to divine. 
The explanation came almost on the heels of the charge. Lord Russell's 
note to Lord Lyons of the 19th of December gave his version of the con- 
versation held on that day. The case was clear to all eyes. But to this 
day the Post has made no retraction of its statement, has not assigned the 
smallest justification for making them, neither has it disclaimed the authority 
upon which they are imputed to have been made. So great has been the 
effect of these disclosures in inspiring a belief that there was an intention 
somewhere to bring on a war, that it is not impossible it may be made the 
basis of some proceedings at the approaching session of Parliament. 

You will doubtless also perceive that Lord Russell's note of our conver- 
sation on the 19th differs in some particulars from that which I had the 
honor to submit to you in my despatch of the 20th of December, No. 93. 
The reason of this is to be traced to the distinction which his lordship vol- 
untarily drew between my official and unofficial character at the outset. I 
understood him as intending to answer my two questions only in my private 
capacity, as a person desirous of making my own arrangements in certain 
contingencies. For that reason I did not consider the part of the conversa- 
tion relating to them as needing to be reported. The other portion of his 
note, touching the substance of your despatch, substantially agrees with 
mine. The casual opinions expressed about the policy of the respective 
countries were not regarded by me as part of the official language, though 
I have not the least objection to their publication. Whilst his lordship was 
about it he might as well have inserted his reply to my reference to the 
part taken by the government of Great Britain in the negotiation of 1804-09, 
which was in substance that there were many things said and done by them 
fifty or sixty years ago which he might not undertake to enter into a defence 
of now — all which was said pleasantly on both sides, without an idea that 
the official conference was not closed. Yet so difficult is it to retain in the 
memory a distinct line between formal and casual conversation that I have 
no disposition in any way to call in question his report, which, so far as it 
goes, is undeniably more accurate than my own. What I have here written 
about it is to account to you for what might otherwise appear an omission 
of duty on my part. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



16 

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No. 103.] Legation of the United States, 

London, January 17, 1862. 
g IR : * * * * * * * * 

I have reason to believe that the removal of the casus belli in the Trent 
affair, has proved a most serious obstacle in the way of all the calculations 
made by the party disposed to sow dissension, between the two countries. 
The expectations that have been raised of a pressure from the manufacturing 
classes to break the blockade in order to obtain cotton are likewise declining. 
The stock is yet quite large, and, taken in conjunction with what is known 
to be coming, it is believed to be sufficient to keep the mills going at the 
present rate for six months longer. The lai-ge manufacturers have become 
pretty well reconciled to the reduction of their product, from a conviction 
that the business had already been overdone, and must have ceased to yield 
any returns had it been continued longer on the former scale. Such being 
the ruined condition of the old programme, it has been found necessary to 
direct attention to the preparation of something new. The chief support of 
the latest schemes is to be traced to the supposed policy of the Emperor of 
the French. It is believed here that he has already made overtures to the 
British government to enter a protest against the blockade as in manner and 
substance too cruelly effective in some respects and very ineffective in others. 
It is also affirmed that he begins to consider it time to agitate the subject of 
recognition of the Confederate States. I cannot say that the evidence that 
has been furnished to me on these points is entirely satisfactory, but it is 
sufficiently so to make it my duty to mention it. Doubtless your sources of 
information in Paris will give you more precise knowledge of the truth than 
I can do here. My main purpose in alluding to it is to call your attention 
to a singular development made of the policy adopted by the confederate 
emissaries here with a view to fortify the movement of their allies in this 
country. The substance of it has been disclosed by a publication in the 
Edinburgh Scotsman, a well-conducted paper, whose sources of information 
I have heretofore found to be good. I take from its issue on Saturday last, 
the 11th of January, the following extract: 

"There exists in London an active and growing party, including many 
M. P.'s, having for its object an immediate recognition of the southern con- 
federacy, on certain understood terms. This party is in communication with 
the quasi representatives of the south in London, and gives out that it sees 
its way to a desirable arrangement. Our information is that the south, 
acting through its London agents, is at least willing to have it understood 
that, in consideration of immediate recognition and the disregard of the 
' paper blockade,' it would engage for these three things : a treaty of free 
trade, the prohibition of all import of slaves, and the freedom of all blacks born 
hereafter. It will easity be seen that if any such terms were offered (but 
we hesitate to believe the last of them) a pressure in favor of the south 
would come upon the British government from more than one formidable 
section of our public." 

I have reason for believing that some such project as this has been actually 
entertained by the confederate emissaries. The pressure of the popular feeling 
against slavery is so great here that their friends feel it impossible to hope 
to stem it without some such plea in extenuation as can be made out of an 
offer to do something for ultimate emancipation. Of course no man 



• 17 

acquainted with the true state of things in America can believe for an 
instant the existence of one particle of good faith in any professions of this 
kind that may be countenanced by the rebel emissaries here. But I have 
thought it might not be without its use to recommend that the fact of their 
sanction of such an agitation should be made known pretty generally in the 
United States, especially among the large class of friends of the Union in 
the border States. If the issue of this contest is to be emancipation with 
the aid of Great Britain, surely the object for which the rebellion against 
our government was initiated — the protection and perpetuation of slavery — 
ceases to be a motive for resisting it further. If the course of the emissaries 
here be unauthorized, it ought to be exposed here to destroy all further con- 
fidence in them. If, on the contrary, it be authorized, it should be equally 
exposed to the people in the slaveholding States. In either event the eyes 
of the people both in Europe and America will be more effectually opened to 
a conviction of the nature and certain consequences of this great struggle. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 105. J Legation of the United States, 

London, January 24, 1862. 

Sir : The only event of any importance connected with American affairs 
that has happened during the last week is the revocation of the orders pro- 
hibiting the exportation of arms and munitions of war. This will release 
the large quantity of saltpetre in the hands of parties here, and will proba- 
bly renew the activity of the confederate emissaries in forwarding supplies 
to the insurgents. . Mr. Davy reports to me the arrival of the Bermuda 
at Hartlepool. Though it is denied that she is to be despatched again, I 
am inclined to believe it only a pretence in order to quiet suspicion. In 
the meanwhile the relative position of the Nashville and of the Tuscarora 
in the harbor of Southampton remains unchanged. On the other hand, the 
Sumter, having been warned to leave Cadiz, has put into Gibraltar, after 
capturing two vessels. This tendency to take refuge in British ports is 
becoming so annoying to the government here that I shall not be surprised 
if the limit of twenty-four hours' stay be soon adopted. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 111.] Department of State, 

Washington, January 31, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of January 10, No. 99, has been received. 

If it be true, as you seem to think possible, that we have only averted 
an occasion for the hostilities which the British government indicated, and 
have not at all removed the cause of those hostilities, we still have every 
2 



18 i 

reason to be satisfied with our course in the Trent affair. The American 
people could not have been united in a war which, being waged to main- 
tain Captain Wilkes's act of force, would have practically been a voluntary 
war against Great Britain. At the same time it would have been a war in 
1861 against Great Britain for a cause directly the opposite of the cause 
for which we waged war against the same power in 1812. 

We shall practice towards Great Britain not only justice, but moderation, 
and even liberality, in all the exciting transactions which this unhappy 
domestic contest of ours shall produce. We have not left Great Britain in 
doubt of our own confidence in our ability to maintain the integrity of the 
Union, or of our grounds for it, notwithstanding the embarrassment which 
we experience in the indirect support which the insurgents derive from 
nations whose rights we have invariably respected. We are not unaware, 
nor do we complain of the impatience in Europe which exacts from us quick 
and conclusive victories. We can excuse it because, even among ourselves 
at home, there is a failure to apprehend that the insurrection has disclosed 
itself over an area of vast extent, and that military operations, to be suc- 
cessful, must be on a scale hitherto practically unknown in the art of war. 
At the same time we are not unaware of the fact that the impatience of 
European nations 'is due chiefly to the inconveniences which they suffer 
from the contest, and not to a careful consideration of the strength and 
energies of the parties engaged in it. We have every motive they can 
have, and many other infinitely stronger motives, for bringing the war to 
the speediest possible successful conclusion. We expect that Great Britain 
will realize not only this truth, but another important one, namely, that any 
solution of this controversy by a division of the Union would be detrimental 
to British commerce and to British prestige. Believing this, we expect that 
Great Britain will not become a party in the contest against the United 
States. If, insensible to these considerations, the British government shall 
intervene, then we must meet the emergency with the spirit and resolution 
which become a great people. 

The tone of the public virtue is becoming sounder and stronger every 
day. Military and naval operations go on with success, hindered only by 
the weather, which, for almost a month, has rendered the coasts unsafe and 
the roads impassable. 

I have observed that the British people were satisfied with the vigor and 
the energy of the preparations which their government made for the war 
which they expected to occur between them and ourselves. 

It may be profitable for us all to reflect that the military and naval prepa- 
rations which have been made by this government to put down the insur- 
rection have, every day since the first day of May last, equalled, if not sur- 
passed, the daily proportion of those war preparations which were regarded 
as so demonstrative in Great Britain. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC, fyc, fyc. 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. It 2.] Department of State, 

Washington, January 31, 1862. 

Sir : I learn from reports received at the Navy Department from the com- 
mander of the American steamer Flambeau that, although the United States 
have a deposit of coal at Nassau, our steamers are denied the right of 
taking it for use by the colonial authorities at that place. 



19 

I do not send you a formal statement of the fact, because, although it is 
presumed that those authorities have not acted under instructions from 
London, yet that they nevertheless must themselves have reported their 
proceedings to the home government. Justified, as I think, by this circum- 
stance in assuming that the fact which I thus bring to your attention is 
already known to Earl Eussell, I have to request you to ask from him an 
explanation of the proceeding, and to inquire whether we are to understand 
that the colonial ports are to be closed against our vessels-of-war when 
entering them for coal, or that such vessels are to be denied the right of sup- 
plying themselves from stores of "our own lying in such ports. Liberal as 
we are in all our intercourse with the British government in American 
waters, the President declines to believe that that government has sanc- 
tioned or will sanction the proceedings of the authorities at Nassau. Should 
you find this to be the fact, you will suggest to Earl Russell our desire 
that proper instructions may be given to the authorities there. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., 8fC, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 109.] Legation of the United States, 

London, January 31, 1862. 

Sir : The expectations of a declaration of some kind from the Emperor of 
the French on the subject of the American difficulty which might be made 
the basis of an agitation here have been disappointed. Whatever is to be 
done must be originated in Parliament by the avowed friends of the rebels. 
All the particular grounds of complaint against the United States have been 
successively removed from under them. The parties seized in the Trent are 
now safe on this side of the Atlantic. The blocking up of Charleston harbor 
is shown to be no real grievance. The inefficiency of the blockade is the 
only remaining proposition which it is attempted to support by evidence. 
Even that would be met by proof drawn from the admissions made by the 
insurgents at home, if it could have been supplied in a tolerably authentic 
form. I regret that I have not at my command an}- official tabular state- 
ment of the number of vessels turned off or taken during the period of 
blockade, or evidence of the price of the various commodities of foreign 
growth or manufacture rendered scarce by the operations of the blockading 
force. But inasmuch as the government is obviously disinclined to sustain 
an objection of this kind just now, the probability is that nothing will be 
made out of it. There is, then, not a particle of solid material for the dis- 
satisfaction with the government of the United States, based on its own 
policy, to make a quarrel out of. Resort must then be had to the simple 
objection that the rebellion has not been suppressed. This will be urged 
as justifiable cause for early recognition ; and upon that issue the sense 
of the House of Commons will probably be sooner or later taken. At this 
moment it is impossible to estimate the strength of parties, ©r the character 
of the division. The impression is that the conservatives generally favor 
such a measure, of which thus far I see no evidence beyond the general 
tendency of one or two* newspapers in that interest, which I have had oc- 
casion to suspect not to be trustworthy organs. I am rather inclined to the 
belief that this subject has not yet become a party question in the eyes of 
the members of either side. Each individual, therefore, indulges his partic- 



20 

ular opinion. There is no knowing how soon it may become so. That will 
depend upon the chances of making anything out of it in case of a conflict. 
The ministry are notoriously feeble in Parliament, whilst the conservatives 
are strong only whilst confining themselves strictly within a negative posi- 
tion. Hence the situation of both parties rests equally upon an avoidance, 
at least for the present, of test questions. Lord Falmerston is sufficiently 
popular to make it hazardous to attempt to dislodge him by a coup de main 
in Parliament, which would inevitably be followed by a formidable opposi- 
tion headed by him. The more eligible course has thus far been thought to 
be to await the moment, which cannot be long delayed, of his retreat, when 
Lord Derby is expected to be summoned to take his place with the consent 
of all but the radical section of the people. This will be an era for a recon- 
struction of parties. 

Such has been the programme down to the assembling of Parliament. 
What shape things may take afterwards it is impossible to predict. That 
the American question is to be a serious element in any calculation of its 
action everything conspires to make us believe. I shall endeavor, so far 
as it may be within my power, to keep you informed of the movements as 
they occur. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 178.] Department of State, 

Washington, February 4, 1862. 

Sir : The Africa came so late that I had only time, before the then next 
mail day, to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 102, in a paper 
which was devoted to subjects different from those you have discussed. 

I am gratified with the information that, in your opinion, the mind of the 
government, as well as that of the British nation, is now somewhat disa- 
bused of the very unjust idea that this government entertains sentiments 
of hostility towards them. 

I transmit herewith a copy of an unofficial letter I have sent to Lord 
Lyons, together with a copy of a letter that, amid the intensest heat of 
the late excitement, I had occasion to address to his excellency the governor 
of the State of Maine. This correspondence may perhaps be properly used 
for the purpose of more effectually removing impressions so unjust to us and 
dangerous to the peace of the two nations. 

Some correspondents and many journals write to us that the Parliament 
and the Chambers are to be pressed into discussions designed to induce 
Great Britain and France to recognize the insurgents and intervene to raise 
our blockade. I have already made some suggestions to you with a view 
to counteract those dangerous designs. I am not aware that I can now 
profitably do more in that direction. 

I turn, therefore, to another subject. Let us suppose that the European 
states had been content to leave the insurrection unnoticed until now. 
Does any one believe that in that case a single European vessel engaged in 
lawful trade would have ever been molested by the insurgents, who have 
not been able to possess, occupy, and keep open, one solitary port on the 
whole coast of this continent. 



21 

Does any one believe that, in the case supposed, a single piratical insur- 
gent vessel would have been found demanding entrance into an European 
port with trophies, spoils, or captives taken from American merchantmen 
sunk or burned in European waters ? Does not every one see that, in that 
case, the unseemly scenes recently enacted in the ports of Cadiz and South- 
ampton could never have occurred ? Toward what end have these and all 
other such unhappy occurrences led but the prolongation of a strife now 
only less injurious to European interests than to our own, while it is 
demoralizing political society in all nations ? 

Now, when passion and alarm are subsiding in Europe, may there not be 
found in the government and in the Parliament of Great Britain statesmen 
who will see that the true path to peace is in retracing the steps which only 
lead through disastrous conflict upon the soil of this continent between this 
truly popular and long-established government and those who would subject 
it all to the power of slavery rather than conform their political institutions 
to the spirit of the age ? 

You are not expected to present these suggestions formally to the British 
government, but, being just in themselves, you will use them, in your dis- 
cretion, to promote the great interests of both countries. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, <&c, dec. 

P. S. — I also enclose to you herewith a printed copy of the proceedings of 
the legislature of Maine on the subject of the passage of British troops 
through that State. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 179.] Department of State, 

Washington, February 5, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of January It, No. 103, fell upon the department 
as merely a small part of the largest foreign mail ever received here, and 
only after such delays as left insufficient time to dispose of the same before 
the departure of the outgoing steamer. 

I approve entirely of your proceeding in regard to the Nashville, while I 
hail the solicitude of the British government for the preservation of peace 
in the British waters as a favorable indication. I have given to the Navy 
Department the information received from you concerning the probable 
attempt to transfer the Nashville to British owners. 

I have given to Mr. Perry substantially the same ideas which I have 
expressed to yourself in regard to the uselessness to European maritime 
powers of a policy on their part which invites only insurgent privateers and 
repels loyal American commerce from their ports. It is easy to see that 
this is the effect of a premature recognition of the insurrection as entitled 
to belligerent rights. 

We hear from various correspondents, as you do, that France proposed 
three months ago to Great Britain a recognition and intervention to break 
thejblockade. 

The Communication of this kind which appeared to wear the highest 
character for authority was said to have come from the innermost circle of 
the British government. We have not credited it for this, among other 
reasons, namely : Lord Lyons, who, although a man of prudent reserve, is, 



22 

at the same time, entirely truthful, has frankly told me that he knows nothing 
of the matter, while the French minister, who is a very frank and friendly 
person, denies all knowledge of any such purpose. Further, Mr. Thouvenel's 
communications with us, made before and after the settlement of the Trent 
affair, are of such a character as to exclude a belief that France was, indeed, 
proposing to Great Britain a plot for the dismemberment of the Union. More- 
over, I am slow to believe that either the government of France or the 
government of Great Britain misunderstand the true interests of their own 
country so much as to desire the dissolution of the Union, especially a dis- 
solution to be effected by European intervention, and with the purpose of 
establishing a slaveholding power on the borders of the Caribbean sea. 

We have unmistakable evidence that sympathizers with the secessionists 
will inaugurate a debate and motion for recognition in Parliament. Nor 
will I deny that I indulge some apprehension of the result. But, at the 
same time, I am not conscious of having left anything undone that could be 
done to enlighten the British government and the British public upon the 
merits of the question. The solution of it must be left to those who are 
expected to assume the responsibility. One thing is certain, so far as any 
future political event can be, and that is, that neither with nor without 
foreign aid will this Union be permitted by the American people to fall. 

I cannot close this despatch without expressing especial acknowledgments 
for the care and candor with which you have sifted the thick rumors of 
mischief, and given me what was worthy of consideration. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC, fyc, SfC. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extract. ] 



No. 112.] Legation of the United States, 

London, February 7, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of her Majesty's speech 
to both houses of Parliament, together with the Morning Post newspaper 
of this morning, giving a report of the debate in the two houses yesterday 
on the address. It will be perceived that both Lord Russell and Lord 
Palmerston announced, quite distinctly, the intention of the government to 
maintain its present position. The position of Lord Derby, on the other hand, 
is somewhat equivocal, and would seem to imply an organized movement, if 
it were not for the firmer tone of Mr. D'Israeli in the other house. On the 
whole, the expression of sentiment, so far as it goes, is favorable. The de- 
bate will, however, take quite a different shape when it comes to the ques- 
tions presented in detail. There is no reason to doubt that a movement will 
then be made in whatever direction may be thought most likely, at the 
moment, to be favorable to the insurgents. The earnestness with which it 
will be pressed will largely depend on the nature of the intelligence received 
from the United States. , 

I beg, therefore, once more to urge the propriety of supplying this legation 
with as much authentic information as possible of the condition of the 
struggle, especially of the state of the blockade, the internal condition of 
the disaffected States, and the progress of the war. Speculation is at this 



23 

moment of little use. Our friends want their hands strengthened, both in 
the power of affirming our action and denying that assumed by the friends 
of the rebels. I do not like to be obliged to confess, when asked questions 
by persons who ought to know, touching the movements and policy of the 
government, that I am not able to answer them. I do not include in this 
category the inquiries most frequently addressed to me touching emancipa- 
tion, although public opinion here is more sensitive to that chord than to 
any other. The rumor of propositions on that subject from the confederates 
is kept up as strenuously as the denial that the disposal of it enters at all into 
the issue raised by the United States. I know not how far the government 
may itself be possessed of accurate information respecting the domestic 
situation of the rebels, but the fact is certain that the total ignorance of it 
on this side is of the greatest possible advantage to their cause. For it 
enables their unscrupulous and desperate emissaries to palm off, without 
contradiction, any representation of it they chose to make. 

I see by the newspapers that Mr. Yancey has embarked in a steamer to 
the West Indies, on his way home. He has labored indefatigably upon the 
newspaper press, and not without a good deal of success. It is said, though 
I know not with what truth, that large sums have been expended in this 
direction. The condition of the press is now so peculiar in this country 
that it is unusually open to such influences. I have not time to explain the 
reasons for this statement, for they run deeply into the moral and political 
condition of the people. At some future moment I may make it the subject 
of a particular communication. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



The speech of the Lords Commissioners to both houses of Parliament, on 
Thursday, February 6, 1862. 

My Lords and Gentlemen: 

We are commanded by her Majesty to assure you that her Majesty is 
persuaded that you will deeply participate in the affliction by which her 
Majesty has been overwhelmed by the calamitous, untimely, and irreparable 
loss of her beloved consort, who has been her comfort and support. 

It has been, however, soothing to her Majesty, while suffering most 
acutely under this awful dispensation of Providence, to receive from all 
classes of her subjects the most cordial assurances of their sympathy with 
her sorrow, as well as of their appreciation of the noble character of him, 
the greatness of whose loss to her Majesty and to the nation is so justly 
and so universally felt and lamented. 

We are commanded by her Majesty to assure you that she recurs with con- 
fidence to your assistance and advice. 

Her Majesty's relations with all the European powers continue to be 
friendly and satisfactory; and her Majesty trusts there is no reason to 
apprehend any disturbance of the peace of Europe. 

A question of great importance, and which might have led to very serious 
consequences, arose between her Majesty and the government of the United 
States of North America, owing to the seizure and forcible removal of four 
passengers from on board a British mail packet by the commander of a 
ship-of-war of the United States ; but that question has been satisfactorily 



24 

settled by the restoration of the passengers to British protection, and by 
the disavowal by the United States government of the act of violence com- 
mitted by their naval officer. 

The friendly relations between her Majesty and the President of the 
United States therefore remained tinimpaired. 

Her Majesty warmly appreciates the loyalty and patriotic spirit which 
have been manifested on this occasion by her North American subjects. 

The wrongs committed by various parties and by successive governments 
in Mexico upon foreigners resident within the Mexican territory, and for 
which no satisfactory redress could be obtained, have led to the conclusion 
of a convention between her Majesty, the Emperor of the French, and the 
Queen of Spain, for the purpose of regulating a combined operation on the 
coast of Mexico, with a view to obtain that redress which has hitherto been 
withheld. 

That convention, and papers relating to that subject, will be laid before 
you. 

The improvement which has taken place in the relations between her 
Majesty's government and that of the Emperor of China, and the good faith 
with which the Chinese government have continued to fulfil the engagements 
of the treaty of Tien-tsin, have enabled her Majesty to withdraw her troops 
from the city of Canton, and to reduce the amount of her force on the coast 
and in the seas of China. 

Her Majesty, always anxious to exert her influence for the preservation of 
peace, has concluded a convention with the Sultan of Morocco, by means of 
which the Sultan has been enabled to raise the amount necessary for the 
fulfilment of certain treaty engagements which he had contracted towards 
Spain, and thus to avoid the risk of a renewal of hostilities with that power. 
That convention, and papers connected with it, will be laid before you. 

Gentlemen of the House of Commons: 

Her Majesty commands us to inform you that she has directed the es- 
timates for the ensuing year to be laid before you. They have been framed 
with a due regard to prudent economy and to the efficiency of the public 
service. 

My Lords and Gentlemen: 

Her Majesty commands us to inform you that measures for the im- 
provement of the law will be laid before you, and among them will be a bill 
for rendering the title to land more simple, and its transfer more easy. 

Other measures of public usefulness relating to Great Britain and to 
Ireland will be submitted for your consideration. 

Her Majesty regrets that in some parts of the United Kingdom, and in 
certain branches of industry, temporary causes have produced considerable 
pressure and privation; but her Majesty has reason to believe that the 
general condition of the country is sound and satisfactory. 

Her Majesty confidently recommends the general interests of the nation 
to your wisdom and your care; and she fervently prays that the blessing 
of Almighty God may attend your deliberations, and may guide them to the 
promotion of the welfare and happiness of her people. 



25 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 180.] Department of State, 

Washington, February 10, 1862. 

Sir: It seems a mockery to give you accounts of military operations, in- 
somuch as, though my advices are delayed until the last hour before the 
departure of the mail, they are outstripped by the telegraphic despatches 
going during two whole days from all parts of the country to the very hour 
of the sailing of the steamer. 

Cloudless skies, with drying winter winds, have at last succeeded the 
storms which so long held our fleets in embargo and our land forces in their 
camps. 

The Burnside expedition has escaped its perils, and is now in activity on 
the coast of North Carolina. The great victory at Mill Spring, in Kentucky, 
has been quickly followed by the capture of Fort Henry, on the Tennessee 
river, and the interruption of the railroad by which the insurgents have 
kept up their communications between Bowling Green and Columbus; and 
the divisions in the west are all in activity with prospects of decisive 
achievements. 

It is now nearly one year since the insurgents began their desperate un- 
dertaking to establish a confederacy of the fifteen slave States. At some 
time within the previous sis months they had virtually displaced the flag of 
the Union in thirteen of those States by stratagem or by force, and it stood 
in apparent jeopardy in the fourteenth State. 

But the process of preparation has steadily gone on in the loyal States, 
while that of exhaustion has been going on in the disloyal. Only eleven of 
the slave States are practically subject to the insurgents, and already the 
flag of the Union stands, as we think, irremovably fixed upon some points 
in every one of the thirty-four States, except Texas, Alabama, and Arkansas. 
Congress has come fully up to the discharge of its great responsibility of 
establishing the finances of the country on a safe and satisfactory founda- 
tion. Notwithstanding the protestations of the insurgents that the people 
of the insurgent States are unanimous in their determination to overthrow 
the government, we have the most satisfactory evidence that the Union will 
be hailed in every quarter, just as fast as the army shall emancipate the 
people from the oppression of the insurgent leaders. 

Under these circumstances, you will judge how strangely the assumptions 
of European papers and politicians that a preservation of the Union is im- 
possible sound to us when they reach this side of the Atlantic. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sf-c, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 
[Extract.] 



No. 114.] Legation op the United States, 

London, February 13, 1862. 

Sir: I transmit herewith a copy of the Morning Post, of the 11th instant, 
containing a report of the remarks made in the House of Lords on the subject 
of the blockade and of the treatment of British citizens in the United States. 



26 

Thus far the indications seem to be much more favorable to the maintenance 
of the existing relations between the countries than I had ventured to hope. 
This is partly to be ascribed to the course taken by the ministry, which I fully 
believe is taken in good faith, and somewhat to the current of intelligence 
from America for a week or two back, which renders the position of the in- 
surgents much more dubious than it has been regarded heretofore. I have 
now only to confirm my previous assurances that a fair share of positive 
success in the field within the present and the next month will leave us free 
from the danger of any interference from this country, at least for some 
mouths to come. 

At the same time that I say this, it seems to be my duty not to lose sight of 
the extreme uncertainty of the political direction of Great Britain at this 
moment. The ministers have lost so much ground in the elections held 
during the past season to supply vacancies, as well as by local disaffection 
in certain quarters, as to deprive them of a sure hold on the majority of 
Parliament. Their position, therefore, rests upon negatives, or, in other 
words, the absence of any declared system of policy, upon a part or all of 
which the opposition can tender a formal issue. On the other hand, Lord 
Derby and his friends do not yet feel strong enough to take the initiative in 
a policy of aggression upon which they would be ready to hazard an appeal 
to the people. This will account for the cautious manner in which they feel 
round the American question, in order to see if there be a weak place in the 
ministerial attitude. And so will be their probable action, until they find 
somewhere a place to make a' stand. Should the opportunity be furnished, 
•and the majority side with them, I have good reason to believe the struggle 
will not be permitted to end there. As this Parliament was originally 
elected under the strong conservative influences at the moment controlling the 
government, the attempt will undoubtedly be made to appeal from its de- 
cision by a dissolution and a new election. And not until after that event 
shall have taken place will it be at all possible to make even tolerably cor- 
rect calculations of the future policy. 

If this be in any degree an accurate description of the state of things, I 
trust that you will perceive at once the importance of keeping in view the 
possibility of accidentally, or otherwise, supplying a pretext for a division 
here adverse to the interests of the United States. There are persons 
enough here anxious to make a point on the foreign policy at a moment 
when the popular feeling will have become peculiarly sensitive by the . dis- 
tress occasioned by the failure of the cotton supply and the loss of our 
markets. In this sense it is, I think, that Mr. Cobden has strongly repre- 
sented the difficulty of long persevering in the blockade. I think I see a 
good deal of timidity in approaching any question that may involve the ne- 
cessity of upholding, even in appearance, the cause of a foreign country 
against the obvious and pressing necessities of this. We understand too 
well the nature of party tactics in America not to comprehend at once the 
precise nature of this difficulty. In this sense I am inclined to believe that 
the happening of the affair of the Trent just when it did, with just the issue 
that it had, was rather opportune than otherwise. But it has left us utterly 
unable to make any further concessions that are not clearly and universally 
perceived to be just. #####* 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



27 

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 

House of Lords. — Monday, February 10. 

The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at 5 o'clock. * * 

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN AMERICA. 

•The Earl of Carnarvon said he was anxious, to ask a question of some 
importance of the noble earl the secretary for foreign affairs. The house 
would remember that on Friday last he made some remarks on the case of 
an Englishman in America who had been taken into custody and sent to 
prison under the warrant of Mr. Seward. Since Friday he had received 
further information in reference to similar cases, but they were, if possible, 
worse than the one he then mentioned. He understood that at this mo- 
ment there were no less than three British subjects who had been for four 
or five months confined in Lafayette prison, and they had been detained 
there without any charge of any sort or kind having been made against 
them. There had been no inquiry made into their cases. An inquiry had 
been asked for, but it had been refused, unless they first consented to take 
the oath of allegiance to the government of the United States. Now, if 
that were so, it was clear that those persons had been illegally arrested, 
illegally imprisoned, and illegally detained, and there ought not to be a 
moment lost before clearly understanding the present position of affairs. 
(Hear.) In these American prisons there were confined persons of every 
rank and means, and intelligence, and many who had been brought up in 
affluence — there were representatives of the liberal professions — of the bar, 
the press, and the judicature, and many of the best classes of American 
society. They had been arrested, and dragged from prison to prison, and 
they had undergone very great hardships. So far as it concerned the 
American citizens their lordships' house had nothing to do, except in this 
way, that their position would throw some light upon the manner in which 
British subjects were treated in prison. The state of this prison was very 
bad. In it were confined 23 political prisoners, and two-thirds of them 
were placed in irons. From this prison the light and air were excluded, 
the ventilation was imperfect, and the atmosphere was oppressive and in- 
tolerable. The prisoners were deprived of the decencies of life, and the 
water supplied to them was foul, and for some purposes it was salt. He 
had received these facts from an authority which he could not doubt, and 
he believed in their correctness. The names of the British subjects were 
Charles Green, formerly a British merchant resident at Savannah. He went 
from Liverpool, and his connexion with this country had been maintained 
to the present time, for he had now a son residing at Liverpool. The next 
person was Andrew Lowe, also a British merchant residing at Savannah, 
and he had children now at school at Brighton. The other person was an 
Irish laboring man, who went out to America in October, 1860, in search of 
a relative resident near Harper's Ferry, and the troops of the federal gov- 
ernment having found him there, he was taken into custody, and the oath 
of allegiance having been tendered to him and refused, he was dragged to 
to a prison in New York, and had since been confined there. Now, if these 
persons had broken the laws of the United States, they ought to be brought 
to trial, and if they were found guilty, then let them be sentenced according 
as the law directed ; but if they had not broken any law, then they ought 
not to be kept in prison for an indefinite period, and on secret charges. He 
understood that an inquiry would be directed into the cases of these per- 
sons, but Mr. Seward made it a preliminary condition that they should take 
the oath of allegiance to the government of the United States. Now, the 
very fact that these persons would not do that served to show that they 



28 

were British subjects. He wished to know how far the noble earl had been 
informed of these things, and what steps or measures he had taken to ob- 
tain redress. 

Earl Russell said : I conclude that the noble earl has hardly read the 
papers which have been laid upon the table of the house by command of 
her Majesty ; for the noble earl would there have fouud a correspondence 
between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward, and also between her Majesty's gov- 
ernment and Lord Lyons, on this subject. The noble earl, in his statement, 
seems hardly to have taken into account the very critical circumstances in 
which the government of the United States has been placed. In the spring 
of last year nine of the States in the scheme of confederation declared war 
against the government of the United States. In such circumstances as 
these it is usual for all governments to imprison upon suspicion persons 
who they consider are taking part in the war against them. In a case which 
happened not many years ago, viz: 1848, when there was a conspiracy for 
the purpose of overturning the authority of her Majesty, the secretary of 
state applied to the other house of Parliament for authority to arrest per- 
sons on suspicion, viz: for the suspension of the habeas corpus act, and in 
the papers presented to Parliament at that date there are two cases in which 
the lord-lieutenant of Ireland had ordered the arrest of two American per- 
sons ; a complaint was thereupon made by the American government, and 
nry noble friend, (Lord Palmerston,) at that time at the head of the foreign 
office, replied that with regard to those persons the lord-lieutenant had due 
information, upon which he relied, that those persons were engaged in prac- 
tices tending to subvert the authority of the crown, and were aiding prac- 
tices which were being pursued in that part uf the kingdom. Those persons 
were never brought to trial, but on that authority they were arrested. 
After this civil war broke out in America, complaints were made by certain 
British subjects that they had been arrested upon suspicion. I immediately 
directed Lord Lyons to complain of that act as an act enforced by the sole au- 
thority of the President of the United States, and especially in regard to one of 
those persons there seemed very light grounds for suspicion, and I said he 
ought not to be detained. I am not here to vindicate the acts of the American 
government for one or for any of those cases. Whether they had good grounds 
for suspicion, or whether they had light grounds for suspicion, it is not for me 
here to say. If I thought there were light grounds for suspicion, it was my 
business to represent that to the government of the United States, but it is not 
my business to undertake their defence in this house. The American minister 
replied that the President had, by the Constitution, the right, in time of war 
or rebellien, to arrest persons upon suspicion, and to confine them in prison 
during his will and pleasure. This question has been much debated in 
America, and judges of high authority have declared that the writ of habeas 
corpus could not be suspended except by an act of Congress. But certain 
lawyers have written on both sides of the question; and I have recently 
received a pamphlet, in which it is laid down that the meaning of the law of 
the United States is, that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended on the 
sole authority of the President of the United States. The question itself 
was brought before Congress, and a resolution was proposed that there 
should be no arbitrary arrests except with the sanction of Congress. But it 
was contended that it was part of the prerogative of the President; and a 
large majority decided that the question should not be discussed, and thereby 
left the President to act for himself. So much for the power given by the 
Constitution of the United States. With regard to the particular acts which 
the Secretary of State, under the sanction of the President, has authorized 
as to the arrest of British subjects as well as American subjects, I am not 
here to defend those arrests, but I certainly do contend that it is an authority 



29 

which must belong to some person in the government, if they believe that 
persons are engaged in treasonable conspiracies in the taking part as spies, 
or in furnishing arms against the government. I believe that in regard to 
man}'- of the cases of arbitrary authority that power was abused. I believe 
that, not only with regard to persons arrested, but in the course pursued, 
there was unnecessary suspicion; but I do not find that in any case there 
has been any refusal to allow British consuls at places where convenient to 
hear the cases of those persons, or when a statement was made by the 
British minister that Lord Lyons was slow in representing the case to Mr. 
Seward. Lord Lyons represented to me that these cases took up a very 
grea't part of his time, and he was anxious to investigate every one of them. 
Nor can I say that Mr. Seward has refused at any time to listen to those 
complaints. He has always stated that he had information upon which he 
could depend that these persons were engaged in treasonable practices 
against the government of the United States. That being the question, the 
noble earl states, upon his own authority, that the arrests are illegal, and 
that the persons are kept in prison illegally. But that is more than I can 
venture to say. I can hardly venture to say that the President of the United 
States has not the power — supposing persons are engaged in treasonable 
conspiracies against the authority of the government — to keep them in 
prison without bringing them to trial; and it would require a strong denial 
of the authority of the law officers of the United States before I could pre- 
sume to say that the President of the United States had not that power. 
With regard to the particular cases which the noble earl has referred to, I 
am unable to say whether or not some of those persons may not have been 
engaged in these conspiracies. We all know that during the time in which 
the United States have been divided there has been much sympathy shown 
in this country on one side and on the other — some have shown a strong 
sympathy for the north, and some for the south. (Hear, hear.) With regard 
to some of those cases, I have stated I thought the circumstances were such 
that it was quite evident that they had not been engaged in any conspiracy. 
There was one gentleman who happened to be a partner in a firm, and the 
other partners had great connexions with the south. It was true that the 
firm had strong southern sympathies, but the gentleman himself was a firm 
supporter of the government of the Union. It was the mere circumstance 
of letters being sent to his partner which induced his arrest. I thought that 
a most arbitrary and unjust proceeding.. (Hear.) Mr. Seward said he 
thought the circumstances were enough to induce suspicion, but that as 
soon as it was ascertained that there was no ground for that suspicion that 
gentleman was released. An innocent person being arrested and confined 
for several days in prison was undoubtedly a great grievance, and one for 
which he was entitled to compensation; but beyond the right to complain, 
and beyond the constant remonstrances of Lord Lyons, the British minister, 
in every such case, I do not hold that the circumstances warrant further 
interference. 1 believe the gentleman to whom I allude had stated that he 
expected his own friends would procure his release. The noble lord men- 
tioned three cases. I was not aware of the cases the noble earl would 
mention. But with regard to Mr. Green, this is the statement he made' on 
the fifth of September: "I desire no action to be taken by my friends in 
England in consequence of my arrest. Lord Lyons has represented my case, 
and it will receive investigation in due time. Meanwhile I am in the hands 
of the officers of this fort." There have been other cases of arrest and im- 
prisonment under circumstances involving considerable hardship. There 
have been many cases of arbitrary imprisonment without trial; and these 
cases of arbitrary imprisonment have taken place under a government 
which is engaged in a civil war, perhaps one of the most serious and for- 



30 

niidable in which any country was ever engaged. Eight or wrong, it is not 
for us to decide ; but we must admit that all the means that have been 
used by civilized nations in warfare against each other are open to the 
Americans in this case. With respect to the particular cases, I believe that 
to whatever cause it may be owing, whether owing to the novelty of the 
case in North America, or to the inexperience of persons who are not con- 
versant with the carrying out of affairs, or whether it is this, that arbitrary 
power can never be safely intrusted to any one without being abused, to 
"whatever cause it is owing, I believe there will ever be many cases of abuse 
of such power. (Hear, hear.) But in every case where a British subject 
is arrested, and a reasonable case is made out for him, I shall be ready to 
instruct Lord Lyons to bring the case under the consideration of the gov- 
ernment of the United States. Lord Lyons has never been wanting in his 
duty. (Hear, hear.) He has, I think, shown himself a vigilant British 
minister in that respect ; and I trust your lordships will not think that these 
cases have been neglected by the government of this country. (Hear.) 

The Earl of Derby. The statement made by my noble friend behind me, 
and borne out by the noble earl opposite, is one which cannot be listened to 
without feelings excited in the highest degree in consequence of the treat- 
ment to which British subjects have been subjected. I am willing to admit, 
with the noble earl, that every allowance should be made for the circum- 
stances and the difficulties in which the government of the United States is 
placed, and the position in which they stand with regard to the civil war 
in which they are engaged. But I must say that the course they have pur- 
sued with respect to British subjects in America, notwithstanding the remon- 
strances which have been, from time to time, presented to them by Lord 
Lyons, in the performance of his duty, which he appears to have pursued 
with great prudence, is most trying to the patience of this nation. I think 
he was justified in using strong language with regard to the course which 
has been pursued. . That course was anything but in accordance with the 
" Civis Romanus sum " doctrine of the noble lord at the head of the gov- 
ernment. (Laughter.) The noble earl opposite has apparently derived 
some advantage and instruction from the correspondence in which he was 
engaged with Mr. Seward, because in an early stage of those proceedings 
he very properly invoked against those proceedings the protection of the 
American law. He said that that which the law sanctions with regard to 
American subjects we could not complain of when applied to British subjects; 
but the question is this: does the law sanction it? The answer was, that 
the government did not consider themselves bound to take their view of 
American law from a British minister. Such was the substance of the 
courteous reply received by the noble earl. (Hear, hear.) There is one 
question which I must ask the noble earl to answer. It has already been 
asked by my noble friend behind me, but very conveniently the noble earl 
has not thought it necessary to reply to it. He states that the Congress 
has passed a resolution affirming the power of the President, under the Con- 
stitution, to suspend the habeas corpus. 

Earl Russell was understood to express dissent. 

The Earl of Derby. Virtually, at all events, the noble earl so stated, 
because that is the only position on which he rests. There is no law shown, 
and the statement of the noble earl is that the possession of that power by 
the President has been denied by many of the most learned lawyers. The 
action of the judges being, under the unusual circumstances of the case, 
uaider unusual restrictions, (laughter,) there is, therefore, no appeal to the 
law of the United States ; but the noble earl says that virtually the Con- 
gress has affirmed the power of the President under the Constitution to 
suspend the habeas corpus whenever he thinks fit, without reference to Con- 



31 

gress or any other authority than his own discretion. America certainly 
possesses a very free government. (A laugh.) Her institutions are demo- 
cratic, but I would think it a rather unpleasant state of law, or rather 
absence of law, to live under, and a strong illustration of the happiness 
which is, at all events, supposed to be enjoyed by those who are governed 
by limited monarchies. The noble earl has referred to cases where the right 
to suspend the habeas corpus by Parliament has been exercised in this 
country, and he says it has been exercised with respect to American citi- 
zens. But when the right to suspend the habeas corpus has been exercised 
in this country by the authority of the lord-lieutenant, it has been conferred 
on h'im by Parliament. I ask the noble earl when, by British precedent or 
American law, it has been required as a condition of being brought to trial, 
that the person to be taken before the authorities should forswear his alle- 
giance to his own country. (Hear, hear.) It is not denied by the noble 
earl that a British subject has been required, as a condition of his being 
brought to trial, to take the oath of allegiance to the American govern- 
ment, and that when he replied that he was a British subject, that apology 
was not deemed sufficient ; nor has it been denied that he was thereupon 
remitted to prison. Now, going the full length of saying that we are not 
to be the judges of American law, if we are still to admit the doctrine that 
the President may exercise his own power of imprisonment and suspending 
the habeas corpus without the sanction of Congress, I think the noble earl 
will be at a loss to point out law or precedent for requiring a subject of 
another country to forswear his allegiance as a condition to his being brought 
to trial. (Hear.) 

Earl Eussell. With respect to the first point, what I stated, so far as I 
recollect, was this : that on a motion to the Congress with regard to the 
suspension of the habeas corpus by the President, the Congress, by passing 
to the order of the day, or laying the proposition on the table, or whatever 
their form is, voted by a small majority in favor of the proposition. I do 
not think we should complain if the President exercises that power, and the 
Congress does not interfere with it. With regard to the other cases which 
the noble earl has brought forward, I have no knowledge of them, or I would 
have taken pains to inquire into each of them. I certainly do not recollect 
the case of any person being called on to take the oath of allegiance to the 
United States except one, in which there was some question with Lord 
Lyons, and that was the case of a gentleman who had given notice of his 
intention to become a citizen of the United States. Now, a person wishing 
to become a citizen of the United States gives notice that at a certain time — 
within three months — he intends to ask leave to become a citizen of the 
United States. When the time arrives he must not only take an oath of 
allegiance to the United States, but he must forswear all other allegiance, 
more especially to her Majesty Queen Victoria. (Laughter.) This gentle- 
man who was arrested made an appeal to the British government, and the 
answer of Mr. Seward to the remonstrance addressed to him was, "This 
gentleman has renounced all allegiance, especially to her Majesty Queen 
Victoria." The matter was further inquired into, and it was found that Mr. 
Seward was wrong in his fact — (hear, hear) — that this gentleman had giver 
notice that he intended to become a citizen of the United States, and to for- 
swear all allegiance to her Majesty, but he still remained a British subject. 
He had thus placed himself in a position in which he could not claim the 
protection of either one government or the other. (Laughter.) 

The Earl of Donoughmore, without entering on a discussion of the general 
subject, desired to have an explicit answer to one question, namely, whether 
the noble earl at the head of foreign affairs approved of the course which 
had been adopted of tendering the oath of allegiance to a British subject as 



32 

a condition to his being brought to trial ? He was of opinion that no greater 
insult could be offered to any man than to be first arrested by a foreign gov- 
ernment, and then be required by that government to forswear allegiance to 
his own and allegiance to theirs before the charge against him could be 
investigated. He trusted that a distinct answer to that question would be 
given by the noble earl. 

Earl Russell. The answer is, that so far as I know the American govern- 
ment never tendered the oath of allegiance to a British subject knowing him 
to be a British subject. When informed by Lord Lyons that a person 
arrested was a British subject, Mr. Seward once or twice replied that he 
was not aware of the fact, and that he would take care that the oath should 
not be tendered to a British subject. 

The Earl of Derby. Then it just comes to this, that he had no means of 
escaping from prison except by taking the oath. 

THE BLOCKADE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTS. 

The Earl of Malmesbury asked the noble earl at the head of foreign affairs 
whether, amongst the papers he had received from admirals on the American 
station and consuls in America, he had found any account of the actual con- 
dition of the blockade of the Confederate States. He did not ask the ques- 
tion in any spirit of cavilling with the course which the government had 
pursued, and he was the more anxious not to be misunderstood not only by 
their lordships but by the public, from the circumstance that in a most 
strange and unaccountable manner the noble earl near him (the Earl of 
Derby) had been extremely misunderstood and misrepresented by a morning 
journal (the Times) both to-day and last week. Although the noble earl 
gave that journal an opportunity of stating what he really said on Thursday 
relative to the blockade, he observed this morning an article in the same 
paper warning the public against the advice given by his noble friend on 
that occasion. Now, the noble earl never used a single argument in favor 
of breaking the blockade, nor would it be consistent with his (the Earl of 
Malmesbury's) opinion as to public policy to say one word to induce the 
government to adopt that course. That must be a question of time. No 
person on that side of the house wished to press the government to take any 
course but that which they had adopted. But, although these were his 
views with respect to the policy hitherto pursued by the government, he 
wished to know what the real truth and facts of the case were with respect 
to the blockade, because, perhaps, a great deal of exaggeration had been 
made use of in describing it. He was told that Mr. Mason, who came over 
here, as they all knew, to represent the case of the southern States, openly 
declared that no less than six or seven hundred ships had broken the block- 
ade and passed in and out of the southern ports. It was, therefore, very 
desirable that the government should be prepared to form some judgment 
upon the matter. It must be a question on the part of the government as 
to the time in which they would vindicate international law. Under the 
particular circumstances of the case it would, he was aware, be very im- 
politic to take hasty measures with respect to the blockade ; but after the 
opinion which, he believed, had been given by every great power in Europe, 
that though legal according to international law, it would be impossible after 
a time, and if the statement of Mr. Mason, to which he referred, proved true, 
for the whole world to continue to suffer the inconvenience arising from the 
blockade. (Hear, hear.) Much had been said with respect to the declara- 
tion of Paris in 1856. He was sorry that his noble friend (the Earl of 
Clarendon) was not present, as he did not like to speak on a subject of this 
nature in the absence of one whom he believed to be the originator of that 



33 

declaration. At that time he expressed an opinion that should a great war 
take place the declaration of Paris would cease to be regarded. We could 
not lay down a strict rule with respect to blockades, nor did he believe we 
should be able to carry out a declaration prohibiting privateering. If two 
great nations like England and France were unhappily at war, as they had 
been so often, would it be believed that a waidike people, brought to bay, a 
portion of their fleet destroyed, and the remaining portion blockaded, would 
not- have recourse to all means to repel the opposing power ? They would 
do so, of course, and one way of doing so to which they would resort would 
be to issue letters of marque, authorizing privateers to destroy the commerce 
of the enemy. He wished further to know whether the noble earl was in a 
position to give any information respecting the assassination of Dr. McCarthy 
at Pisa, who was stabbed in his own house by an Italian corsair, and who 
had escaped in consequence of the gross neglect and indifference of the 
Italian authorities ? 

Earl Russell said her Majesty's government felt sensible of the support 
given by the noble earl opposite (Earl Derby) on the first night of the ses- 
sion to them respecting their conduct with regard to America. It gave 
great force to the government when they found that all parties agreed in the 
line of policy they adopted, and the nation derived great confidence from 
knowing that they were all united on that subject. With regard to the 
question of the blockade, it was one of very great importance. He could 
not presume to enter upon the discussion of it at that moment. He had 
given orders to Admiral Milne at a very early period, and also to the consuls, 
to afford her Majesty's government every information possible. When the 
blockade was first mentioned by Mr. Adams, he stated the difficulty which 
he saw would exist in blockading 3,000 miles of coast. To this Mr. Adams 
replied that there were only seven ports which it would be necessary to 
blockade, so that the difficulty was not so great as appeared at first sight. 
With regard to the allegation that 500 ships had broken the blockade, he 
had himself made inquiry of Mr. Mason. He asked Mr. Mason what was the 
tonnage of the vessels to which allusion had been made, and to that ques- 
tion Mr. Mason was unable to give him any answer. That was a matter, 
however, of great importance in the question, because the seven ports were 
connected with several other smaller ports, and it was possible that vessels 
carrying small cargoes might run from one to the other ; but these could 
hardly be called vessels running or breaking the blockade. Before the 
meeting of Parliament the had given instructions to have all the papers on 
this subject put together. That was being done, and they would be laid 
shortly before their lordships. He hoped that any judgment upon this ques- 
tion, which was one of very great importance, would be postponed till all 
the information was before the house. It was an evil on the one hand if the 
blockade was ineffective, and therefore invalid; and on the other hand, if 
they were to run the risk of a dispute with the United States without hav- 
ing strong ground for it, it would be a great evil. With regard to the 
dreadful murder to which the noble earl referred, it was quite true that the 
British residents in Tuscany made representations as to the inefficiency of 
the authorities and the means of punishing and detecting crime. That rep- 
resentation was sent to Turin, and a hope expressed that measures would 
be devised to make the police more effective in that part of the country. 
With regard to the arrest of the assassin and the bringing him to justice, 
the report made by the consul was that the proceedings were more than 
usually speedy. But it appeared that these quarters were inhabited by an 
undisciplined and savage kind of men, and crimes were frequent amongst 
them. It appeared that the British residents of Florence complained that 
there was a want of some regular tariff of charges. He hoped that some 
3 



34 

rules would be laid down which would prevent the occurrence of such crimes 
in future. 

Earl Granville said he couldjiot allow the remarks of the noble earl oppo- 
site (the Earl of Malmesbury) to pass without observation. The noble earl 
stated his conviction that the force of circumstances would oblige this gov- 
ernment, in case of war, to disregard the obligations of the treaty of Paris. 
This declaration, as it appeared to him, would have so injurious an effect on 
foreign powers, coming as it did from one who had filled the office of secre- 
tary of state for foreign affairs, that he put it to him whether he had not, in 
the heat of debate, somewhat overstated the matter ? 

The Earl of Malmesbury said, what he intended to say was this: that 
supposing a great country like this or France, after a desperate war, driven 
to the last extremity, and struggling with other powers for its very exist- 
ence, he did not believe that an impatient military people like the French, 
or a people having the spirit of the people of this country, would bear to be 
guided by the paper declaration of 1856, but that the law of self-preserva- 
tion would overrule all other feelings, and under it that they would take any 
steps they thought proper to save themselves and the country from the ex 
treme dangers in which they were placed. (Hear, hear.) 

Earl Granville said he did not expect that anything- of the kind was likely 
to happen, and he hoped the country would never be brought to such an 
extremity as to break the treaty obligations into which it had entered to 
secure some secondary object. 

Earl Russell said he certainly had given expression to an opinion that 
was not in favor of the treaty of Paris in some respects, but said that hav- 
ing been made it must be maintained. 

The subject then dropped. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 182.] Department of State, 

Washington, February 13, 1862. 

Sir: Westerly winds have hindered the steamers so that it is only after 
a period of twenty days that I now receive your despatch of the 24th of 
January, No. 105. 

It affords me pleasure to know that the inhibition against the exportation 
of saltpetre, which was so unnecessary, has been rescinded. 

It has been only European sympathies and European aid that have enabled 
our disloyal citizens to prolong the civil war. The commercial advantages 
which Great Britain derives from her present policy are, a trade with the 
insurgents in articles contraband of war, and in less illegitimate merchan- 
dise introduced into the disloyal States in contravention of a vigorous 
blockade. Besides this commercial advantage, Great Britain gains the 
security of an acknowledgment of her immunity as a neutral by the pirates 
who are engaged in destroying our commerce. But the pirates are outlaws, 
having the control of not one port in our own country. On the other hand, 
what inconveniences do not result to Great Britain herself from her unne- 
cessary and undeserved concessions to the insurgents ? Alarms, apprehen- 
sions, and preparations for war with that one of all the nations whose con- 
stitution and habits most incline it to peace, and which, if left in the enjoy- 
ment of peace, is always at once the most liberal in its supplies of material 
and provisions to the British manufacturers, and the most liberal consumer 
of their fabrics. 



35 

Has not the policy of Great Britain in regard to our internal troubles 
been adhered to long enough? This is a question for the British govern- 
ment. If the British government shall still think it necessary to persevere, 
is it asking too much of them that they shall lend the protection of their 
courts to the enforcement of the neutrality which the Queen's proclamation 
commands ? Will they stand by and see the Bermuda again fitted out with 
munitions and arms by British subjects, to be employed by insurgents in 
their attempts to overthrow the government of the United States ? 

When Spain refuses shelter to the Sumter, is Great Britain willing that 
she shall rest from her work of destruction, and repair in the harbor of 
Gibraltar ? 

These indulgences extended to pirates, who are destroying our commerce, 
must, sooner or later, give rise to the questions, What wrong have the 
United States done or even meditated against Great Britain? What duty 
of neutrality, or even friendship, which they owed to Great Britain have 
they failed to perform ? What fault have they committed in their national 
conduct ? They, indeed, are involved in a domestic strife, but it is a strife 
which, while they are fighting for their own existence, is, at the same time, 
purely a war of self-defence. 

In your own way please bring these views to the attention of Earl Rus- 
sell. Meantime, I shall refer the matter you mention relative to the Bermuda 
and the Sumter to the Secretary of the Navy. I doubt not that, if we must 
maintain war in European waters against American pirates, in addition to 
the naval operations in which we already are engaged nearer home, we 
shall be able to meet that responsibility with full success. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sf3., fyc, fyo. 



Mr. Seioard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 184.] Department of State, 

Washington, February 14, 1862. 

Sir: I herewith transmit to you the copy of a communication of the 24th 
ultimo, addressed to this department by the consul general of the United 
States at Havana. It has reference to the conduct of the master of the 
English steamer General Miramon, off the port of Mobile, in the month 
of May last. It will be seen that, in violation of a solemn pledge, the cap- 
tain of the General Miramon grossly abused a privilege granted to him 
by Flag Officer McKean from motives of humanity. 

You will make the facts known to the British government, and express 
the expectation of the President that if that government has the necessary 
power it will cause the captain of the Miramon to be suitably punished 
for his perfidy. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., 

&c, &c, fyc., London. 



36 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 186.] Department op State, 

Washington, February 17, 1862. 

Sir : The interval between the reception of your last despatches and the 
departure of the mail is too short to permit full response to your call for in- 
formation respecting details which would show the efficiency of the blockade. 
I send you a copy of a communication which has been received from the 
consul general at Havana, by which you will learn, first, that in view of 
the extent of the coast blockaded, and the amount of commerce which ex- 
isted before the blockade began, the number of vessels which have run the 
blockade is very small, and the trade effected by them is inconsiderable. 

Second. That the success of the blockade has continually increased. It 
is now as nearly absolutely effective as any blockade ever was. 

Third. That far the largest portion of the vessels which have run the 
blockade are British vessels. 

You need not be told how little care the British government has taken 
to discourage or repress that prohibited trade. 

But the true test is not the number of vessels that have entered or left 
the blockaded ports, but the actual effect of the blockade. I send you two 
articles on that subject, which you will find conclusive against all allega- 
tions that the blockade is inefficiently conducted. 

Happily the active campaign of our land and naval forces has begun. 
The great preparations which have been made so diligently and so carefully 
in defiance of popular impatience at home and political impatience abroad 
are now followed by results indicative of a complete and even early decision 
of the contest in favor of the government. 

We entertain too high an opinion of the justice as well as the wisdom of 
foreign states to apprehend any intervention in the face of these significant 
triumphs of the arms of the Union. As to details, the public journals which 
you will receive will be the best despatches possible. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWAED. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC., &c, &c. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 187.] Department op State, 

Washington, February 17, 1862. 

Sir : I am not prepared to recognize the right of other nations to object 
to the measure of placing artificial obstructions in the channels of rivers 
leading to ports which have been seized by the insurgents in their attempt 
to overthrow this government. I am, nevertheless, desirous that the ex- 
aggerations on that subject which have been indulged abroad may be cor- 
rected. I have, therefore, applied to the Navy Department for information, 
and I have now to inform you that between the channels leading to the 
harbor of Charleston which have been so obstructed there still remain two 
other channels, neither of which has been so obstructed, and in which there 
has been no design to place any artificial obstructions. These are the 
Swash channel and a part of the so-called Maffit's channel. These two 
latter channels are guarded, and passage through them prevented only by 



37 

the blockading naval forces. Evidence of these facts is furnished you in an 
extract from a report of the flag-officer at Port Royal, hereto appended. 

The question which I have thus noticed, happily, is likely soon to drop 
out of view in the course of stirring events. Within a very short period 
we expect to be in occupation of all or the chief southern ports, and we arc 
already considering how we can afford desirable facilities to foreign as wel 1 
as domestic trade. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, SfC., fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



[Confidential.] 

No. 181 bis.] • Department of State, 

Washington, February 17, 1862. 

Sir : It is represented to us that equally in Great Britain and in France 
the cause of the Union is prejudiced by the assumption that the government 
which maintains it is favorable or at least not unfavorable to the perpetua- 
tion of slavery. This incident is one of the most curious and instructive 
ones which has occurred in the course of this controversy. 

The administration was elected and came into its trust upon the ground 
of its declared opposition to the extension of slavery. The party of slavery, 
for this reason, arrayed itself against, not only the administration, but the 
Union itself, and inaugurated a civil war for the overthrow of the Union 
and the establishment of an exclusive slaveholding confederacy. 

Without surrendering the political principle, we meet them in the battle- 
field and in defence of the Union. The contest for life absorbs all the inter- 
est that had existed, growing out of the previous conflict of ideas. But 
what must be the effect ? If the confederacy prevails, slavery will have a 
constitutional, legitimate, and acknowledged state, devoted to itself as the 
paramount object of the national existence. If the Union prevails, the 
government will be administered by a majority hostile to the fortification 
and perpetuation of slavery. Slavery in the slaveholding States will there 
be left in the care of the people of those States just as it was left at the 
organization of the government in all of the States except Massachusetts. 
It might admit of doubt whether it would not have been able to recover its 
former strength had the slaveholding States acquiesced in the election and 
avoided civil war. But what ground is there to fear such a renewal of 
strength after having been defeated in arms against the Union ? 

What is the operation of the war ? We have entered Virginia, and 
already five thousand slaves, emancipated simply by the appearance of our 
forces, are upon the hands of the federal government there. We have 
landed on the coast of South Carolina, and already nine thousand similarly 
emancipated slaves hang upon our camps. 

Although the war has not been waged against slavery, yet the army acts 
immediately as an emancipating crusade. To proclaim the crusade is un- 
necessary, and it would even be inexpedient, because it would deprive us 
of the needful and legitimate support of the friends of the Union who are 
not opposed to slavery, but who prefer Union without slavery to disunion 
with slavery. 

Does France or does Great Britain want to see a social revolution here, 



38 

with all its horrors, like the slave revolution in San Domingo ? Are these 
powers sure that the country or the world is ripe for such a revolution, so 
that it must certainly be successful ? What, if inaugurating such a revolu- 
tion, slavery, protesting against its ferocity and inhumanity, should prove 
the victor ? * 

Who says this administration is false to human freedom ? Does it not 
acknowledge the citizenship as well as the manhood of men without respect 
to color ? 

Has it not made effective arrangements with Great Britain to suppress 
the slave trade on the coast of Africa ? Has it not brought into life the 
federal laws against the African slave trade, and is it not executing their 
severest penalties ? Besides, is it not an object worthy of practical men to 
confine slavery within existing bounds, instead of suffering it to be spread 
over the whole unoccupied portion of this vast continent ? 

Is it not favoring emancipation in the federal District, to be accomplished 
at the government cost, and without individual injustice or oppression ? 

Does it not receive all who come into the federal camps to offer their 
services to the Union, and hold and protect them against disloyal claimants ? 
Does it not favor the recognition of Hayti and Liberia ? 

The tale that Mr. Cameron was required to give up his place because of 
his decided opposition to slavery is without foundation ; that distinguished 
gentleman resigned his place only because he could be useful in a diplomatic 
situation, while the gentleman appointed his successor, it was expected, 
would be more efficient in administration. His successor has no more 
sympathy with slavery than Mr. Cameron. These facts and thoughts are 
communicated to you confidentially for such use in detail as may be practi- 
cable, but not to be formally presented in the usual way to the government 
to which you are accredited. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c , &c. } &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 190.] Department of State, 

Washington, February 19, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of January 31, (No. 109,) has been received. I was 
just about instructing you how to answer the querulous complaints in Par- 
liament which you have anticipated, the chief of which is the assumed 
incompetency of this government to suppress the insurrection. But a very 
shrewd observer, a loyal, and, at present, exiled Virginian, fell in at the 
moment, and expressed to me the opinion that the end of the war is in sight ; 
that there will be a short and rapid series of successes over a disheartened 
conspiracy, and then all will be over. I give you these opinions as entitling 
us to what is sometimes granted by candid tribunals, namely, a suspension 
of judgment. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., §c, Sfc, SfO. 



39 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 123.] Legation of the Uxited States, 

London, February 21, 1862. 

Sir : In consequence of information furnished to me by the consul of the 
United States at Liverpool of certain suspicious movements at that port, I 
have felt it my duty to make a representation to Lord Russell of the facts 
attending the outfit of the steam gunboat Oreto, and to ask an investiga- 
tion. Copies of the notes that have passed on this subject are herewith 
transmitted. 

Presuming that you are in constant receipt of intelligence from the consuls 
in the various ports of the preparation of vessels with supplies of all sorts 
intended to run the blockade of the southern ports, I do not attempt to 
furnish the information which I obtain. The temptation of rising prices 
will, of course, stimulate these ventures just so long as there shall be any 
reasonable chance of escaping the vigilance of our cruisers. 

There seems to be less and less disposition to press complaints about the 
blockade. The remarks attributed to M. Billault, in the senate of France, 
leave little further hope of co-operation against it from that quarter. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, February 18, 1862. 

My Lord : I have the honor to submit to your consideration the copy of 
an extract of a letter addressed to me by the consul of the United States at 
Liverpool, going to show the preparation at that port of an armed steamer 
evidently intended for hostile operations on the ocean. From the evidence 
furnished in the names of the persons stated to be concerned in her con- 
struction and outfit, I entertain little doubt that the intention is precisely 
that indicated in the letter of the consul, the carrying on war against the 
United States. The parties are the same which despatched the Bermuda 
laden with contraband of war at the time, in August last, when I had the 
honor of calling your lordship's attention to her position, which vessel then 
succeeded in running the blockade, and which now appears to be about 
again to depart on a like errand. 

Should further evidence to sustain the allegations respecting the Oreto 
be held necessary to effect the object of securing the interposition of her 
Majesty's government, I will make an effort to procure it in a more formal 
manner . 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurance of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Hon. Earl Russell, fyo., 8f0., SfC. 



40 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 

Foreign Office, February 26, 1862. 

Sir : With reference to my letter of the 19th instant, on the subject of the 
steamer Oreto, which was believed from reports you had received to be 
fitting' out at Liverpool with a view to acting hostilely against the people of 
the United States, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy of a 
letter from the commissioners of customs to the lords commissioners of her 
Majesty's treasury, reporting the result of the investigations which they 
have caused to be instituted with regard to the vessel in question. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient servant, 

EUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, fyv , 8fC., fyc. 



Report of British Commissioners of Customs. 

Custom-House, February 22, 1862. 

Your lordships having referred to us the annexed letter from Mr. Ham- 
mond, transmitting, by desire of Earl Eussell, copy of a letter from Mr. 
Adams, enclosing an extract of a communication from the United States 
consul at Liverpool, in which he calls attention to a steam vessel called the 
Oreto, reported to be fitting out at Liverpool as a southern privateer, and 
requesting that immediate inquiries may be made respecting this vessel, we 
report : 

That on the receipt of your lordship's reference we forthwith instructed 
our collector at Liverpool to make inquiries in regard to the vessel Oreto, 
and it appears from his report that she has been built by Messrs. Miller & 
Sons for Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., engineers, of Liverpool, and is 
intended for the use of Messrs. Thomas Brothers, of Palermo, one of that 
firm having frequently visited the vessel during the process of building. 

The Oreto is pierced for four guns, [6 ?] but she has yet taken nothing on 
board but coals and ballast. She is not at present fitted for the reception of 
guns, nor are the builders aware that she is to be supplied with guns whilst 
she remains in this country. The expense of her construction has been paid, 
and she has been handed over to Messrs. Fawcett & Preston. Messrs. Miller & 
Sons state their belief that her destination is Palermo, as they have been 
requested to recommend a master to take her to that port, and our collector 
at Liverpool states that he has every reason to believe that the vessel is for 
the Italian government. 

We beg further to add that special directions have been given to the 
officers at Liverpool to watch the movements of the vessel, and that we will 
not fail to report forthwith any circumstances which may occur worthy of 
your lordship's cognizance. 

THOS. F. FREEMANTLE. 
GRENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY. 

The Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury. 



41 

Mr. Seioard to Mr. Adams. 
[Confidential.] 

No. 191.] Department of State, 

Washington, February 28, 1862. 

Sir : The successes of the Union army in the west having brought the 
whole of Missouri and a large portion of Tennessee under the authority of 
the United States, and having already opened a passage for us into 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, it has been determined to-day to per- 
mit the restoration of trade upon our inland ways and waters under certain 
limitations and restrictions, which may continue until the pacification of 
the country shall take place. 

We are maturing the details of this system of inland trade carefully, and 
shall try its operation with a view to the adoption of measures of a similar 
nature, applicable to the country on the sea-coast, which would be some 
alleviation of the rigor of the blockade. 

You may confidentially bring these facts to the notice of the British 
government. We could doubtless go much further and faster in the direc- 
tion last indicated if we could have any reason to expect that concessions 
on our part would be met by a withdrawal, on the part of maritime nations, 
of the belligerent privileges heretofore so unnecessarily conceded, as we 
conceive, to the insurgents. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fy-c, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 
[Extracts.] 



No. 125.J Legation of the United States, 

London, March 6, 1862. 

Sir : Only this morning have I received the despatches by the steamer 
America, numbered from 182 to 188, both inclusive; and a confidential 
.aspatch, marked as 18 1, in addition to the regular one bearing the same 
number. 

I transmit herewith the copy of a note addressed by me to Lord Russell, 
in conformity with the directions contained in your despatch No. 112, of the 
31st of January, touching the action of the authorities of Nassau. As yet 
I haA r e received only the customary formal answer from his lordship an- 
nouncing a reference for information. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D, (X 



42 



Mr. Adams to Earl Eussell. 

Legation of the United States, 

London, February 24, 1862. 

My Lord : It is with much regret that I find myself under the necessity 
of troubling your lordship with another application for information respect- 
ing certain alleged acts of the colonial authorities of Nassau unfriendly to 
the United States. 

It has been reported to the Navy Department, from the commander of the 
United States steamer Flambeau, that, although a deposit of coal belonging 
to that government exists at the place named, its steamers have been inter- 
dicted the use of it. 

Liberal as is the disposition of the government of the United States in 
its intercourse with all foreign nations in American waters, the President 
declines to believe that her Majesty's government have sanctioned or will 
sanction these proceedings on the part of the authorities of Nassau. Should 
he prove to have been correct in this opinion, I am directed to solicit of 
your lordship such action in the proper quarter as may lead to the rectifica- 
tion of the error. 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Hon. Earl Russell, fyc, SfC, Sfc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 199.] Department of State, 

Washington, March 6, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of February 13, No. 114, has been received. 

I regret that it has been impossible to supply you with statistics, which 
our uncharitable friends in England so strenuously insist upon, to show how 
effective or how inefficient the blockade is. We, of course, have no record 
of the cases in which the blockade has been run. Such information must 
be in possession of those who performed the achievement, while we were 
ignorant of the transactions in which they were engaged. I have, however, 
sent you such a list as could be procured at Havana. It shows that gene- 
rally the vessels which have violated the blockade were British. The Brit- 
ish revenue officers, therefore, can furnish the information wanted by members 
of the British Parliament, or at least much of it. It would prove nothing 
to show how many vessels we have captured in the attempt, or the value of 
such vessels and their cargoes, for it is the failure to seize vessels, not suc- 
cess in seizing them, that constitutes the gist of the issue. 

I cannot but think that the true test of the commercial blockade lies in 
the results. The price of cotton in New York is four times greater than in 
New Orleans. That fact is certainly demonstrative. So is the fact that 
salt is ten times higher in New Orleans than in New York. So is the fact 
that gold is even more scarce in Charleston than cotton is in Liverpool. 
Moreover, the pleaders for our destruction in Parliament ought to be held 
to choose between contradictory pleas, and cease to complain of the ruin 
brought into England by the failure of supplies from the blockaded districts, 
or else they ought to admit the efficiency of the blockade. 



43 

I trust, however, that these contradictory complaints about the blockade 
will have passed away before this despatch shall reach its destination. 

Affairs have just fallen into a new condition, suggestive of very different 
questions from those which were troubling you when the paper which I am 
answering was written. It can now be seen, by those who will consent to 
see it, that disunion originated in a local popular excitement or passion, and 
not in any radical and enduring interest adequate to sustain a revolution. 
It is now apparent that we are at the beginning of the end of the attempted 
revolution. That end maybe indeed delayed by accidents or errors at home, 
as it may be by aid or sympathy on the part of foreign nations. But it can 
hardly be deemed uncertain. The strength of the Union is seen in a vast 
army in excellent condition, and a vigorous and well-appointed navy, 
while the national finances are perfectly sound and reliable. On the other 
side are seen a demoralized and decaying navy consisting of two worthless 
pirate steamers, in all carrying half a dozen guns. The credit of the insur- 
gents is depreciated sixty per cent, below par, and daily sinking lower. 
Cities, districts, and States are coming back under the federal authority, 
while it has not really lost a square mile of territory which it held when 
the conflict began. The permanent interests and political sentiments of 
Union are lasting and reliable elements of strength in the federal cause. 
The fires of faction, which gave to disunion all its force, are already burn- 
ing out. Of all foreign nations Great Britain has the deepest interest in a 
speedy termination of the conflict and in a complete restoration of our na- 
tional commerce, as no other nation has so great an interest in the relations 
of permanent friendship with the United States. If Great Britain should 
revoke her decree conceding belligerent rights to the insurgents to-day, this 
civil strife, which is the cause of all the derangement of those relations, and 
the only cause of all apprehended dangers of that kind, would end to-mor- 
row. The United States have continually insisted that the disturbers of 
their peace are mere insurgents, not lawful belligerents. This government 
neither can nor is it likely to have occasion to change this position, but her 
Majesty can, and it would seem that she must, sooner or later, desire to 
relinquish her position. It was a position taken in haste, and in anticipa- 
tion of the probable success of the revolution. The failure of that revolu- 
tion is sufficiently apparent. Why should not the position be relinquished, 
and the peace of our country thus be allowed to be restored ? 

Do you think Earl Russell, astute and well-informed as he is, could name 
one single benefit that Great Britain derives from maintaining a position 
which, although unintentionally, is so unfriendly and so injurious to us, or that 
he could designate one evil that would probably result to the country of 
whose foreign interests he is the guardian from the resumption of her long- 
established relations towards the United States ? Is it not worth your pains 
to suggest to him the inquiry whether it would not be wiser and better to 
remove the necessity for our blockade than to keep the two nations, and 
even the whole world, in debate about the rightfulness or the expediency of 
attempting to break it, with all the consequences of so hostile a measure ? 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC, SfC., SfC 



44 

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

[Extract ] 

No. 201. J Department of State, 

Washington, March 1, 1862. 

Sir:" 

# # # * 

When, in November, we thought we had reason to apprehend new and 
very serious dangers in Europe, the subject was taken into consideration by 
the President at a full meeting of the cabinet. It was understood that the 
insurgents were represented abroad by a number of active, unscrupulous, 
and plausible men, who manifestly were acquiring influence in society, and 
in the press, and employing it with dangerous effect, and it was thought that 
such efforts could be profitably counteracted by the presence in London and 
Paris of some loyal, high-spirited, and intellectual men of social position and 
character. We considered that the presence of such persons there, unless 
they should act with more discretion than we could confidently expect, 
would annoy and possibly embarrass our ministers abroad. It was decided 
that hazard must be incurred in view of dangers which seemed so imminent. 
All our individual sensibilities must give way in time of public peril. The 
persons selected were thought to be among the most prudent and consid- 
erate in the country. When all our agents and friends abroad, consular as 
well as diplomatic, official and unofficial persons, united in warning us of a 
serious danger which they thought was to happen on the meeting of the 
French and British legislatures, respectively, I thought it might be well for 
Mr. Motley to be at London to confer and co-operate with you. I wrote to 
him that if he could it was desirable he should go there, but in everything 
to consult with you and take directions from yourself. I desire you to un- 
derstand that these proceedings in no respect imply any want of satisfac- 
tion with your conduct in your most important mission. The President and 
the cabinet are perfectly unanimous in approving of all your proceedings as 
the very best in every case that could be adopted. I may add that the pub- 
lic approbation is equally distinct and earnest. I speak very frankly when 
I say that I do not recollect the case of any representative of this country 
abroad who has won more universal approbation than you have. I have 
purposely made this an official paper, because we desire that the facts may 
stand, with the President's conclusions, upon the record. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., §•<?., fyc., fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 128.] Legation of the United States, 

London, March 1, 1862. 
Sir: The despatch No. 186, of the nth of February, transmitting a list of 
vessels that have been engaged in efforts to run the blockade, has come just 
in time to add to the materials collected from other sources in advance of 
the discussion which Mr. Gregory, the member for G-alway, proposes to 
commence in the House of Commons to-night. I much regret there is no 
full official list from the Navy Department of all vessels turned off or cap- 



45 

tured. In view of the late course of events, the temper of the people, as 
well as of the higher classes, grows less and less disposed to interference, 
so that I regard the sentiments expressed in Parliament, whatever they 
may be, with very little apprehension. It may bo depended upon that, 
without the occurrence of some very extraordinary event, the government 
of the United States will not be further molested in its efforts to conduct 
its experiment of reducing the rebellion, according to its own plan, to some 
definite result. I think I can say this with more confidence now than at 
any previous period of my residence here. 

But if this be the favorable view of our position in England, it is to be 
kept in mind, on the other hand, that nearly all of the aid which the rebels 
obtain to protract the war comes, either directly or indirectly, from people 
in Great Britain. The newspapers no longer pretend to conceal the fact of 
outfits constantly making of steamers from the port of Liverpool with the 
intention to break the blockade. A large proportion of the vessels in the 
list from the department, already alluded to, appear to be British. The Ber- 
muda has just gone on her second trip, filled with the heaviest cargo of 
cannon and military stores yet despatched ; whilst the nominal destination 
of the Oreto to Sicily is the only advantage which appears to have been 
derived from my attempt to procure the interference of the government to 
stop her departure. How long this business will be continued, in the face 
of such discouraging news as has been lately coming over the Atlantic, it 
is difficult to say. The plain fact in any event remains, that the only pre- 
ventive policy against what is still doing must be found in the vigilance of 
our naval cruisers. It might be of use if official intelligence of the cap- 
tures made by them could be promptly forwarded to this legation, for it is 
not safe to put confidence in mere newspaper statements. It is the popular 
idea that the blockade is not effective which stimulates many of the ven- 
tures. 

Having received notice of the departure of the Oreto for Palermo, I im- 
mediately wrote to Mr. Marsh, at Turin, to apprise him of her destination, 
and likewise to Mr. Sprague, the active consul at Gibraltar, in order that 
he might establish his communications with the various officers in the Med- 
iterranean as to her ulterior movements. I am glad to hear to-day from him 
of the arrival at Cadiz of the Kearsarge. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 203.] Department oe State, 

Washington, March 10, 1862. 
Sir: I have your despatch of February 21, No. 19, which informs me, 
first, of the progress of the debate in Parliament concerning the alleged 
inefficiency of our blockade. I have already treated, sufficiently, I think, 
upon that subject. I will add, however, first, that I am credibly informed 
that the commander of the French fleet in our waters inspected the block- 
ade, and thereupon stated to Mr. Mercier that it is as effective as it could 
be made by any navy in the world. Second, Memphis newspapers publish 
telegrams from New Orleans which state that gold is at a premium there 
of 60 to 65 per cent. 



46 

The other topic presented in your despatch is an assumption in England 
that the government of the United States favors the continuance of slavery, 
while the insurgents are seeking to win foreign support by taking measui'es 
for its melioration aDd ultimate removal. I have hitherto insisted, and I 
shall persevere in insisting, that slavery here, although admitted to be a 
world-wide interest, is, as between ourselves and the insurgents, a domestic 
question. For this reason I declined to invoke or excite foreign prejudices 
against the insurgents on the ground that they were attempting to set up 
a republic in our midst upon the foundation of perpetual slavery, in opposi- 
tion to the federal government which rests upon the basis of the political 
equality oi all men. So now, if it were true that the two parties had 
changed positions, I should still insist that the controversy is one in which 
no foreign judgment could be invoked, for foreign interference on grounds 
of sympathy or favor towards domestic parties is subversive everywhere of 
national sovereignty and independence. Nevertheless, the allegation of 
such a change is utterly groundless in regard to both parties. If the gov- 
ernment of the United States should precipitately decree the immediate abo- 
lition of slavery, it would reinvigorate the declining insurrection in every 
part of the south; and, on the other hand, if the insurgents at home would 
avow the policy of opposition to slavery which their emissaries abroad are 
understood to make pretences to, the insurrection would perish for want of 
its necessary aliment, namely, opposition to abolition. 

The President's recent message to Congress will probably produce a sud- 
den change in the tactics of the emissaries, and we may safely wait for 
them to appear in some new attitude. 

I fall back upon the ground assumed in my recent despatches. There is 
no need for further losses and sufferings in Europe by reason of our domestic 
troubles, and consequently no need for a continuance of the disturbance of 
relations between the maritime states of Europe and ourselves. Let the 
governments of Great Britain and France rescind the decrees which con- 
cede belligerent rights to a dwindling faction in this country, and all their 
troubles will come to a speedy end. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., dec, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 207.] Department of State, 

Washington, March 11, 1862. 

Sir: Information derived from our consul at Liverpool confirms reports 
which have reached us that insurance companies in England are insuring 
vessels engaged in running our blockade, and even vessels carrying con- 
traband of war. This is, in effect, a combination of British capitalists, 
under legal authority, to levjr war against the United States. It is entirely 
inconsistent with the relations of friendship, which we, on our part, maintain 
towards Great Britain; and we cannot believe that her Britannic Majesty's 
government will regard it as compatible with the attitude of neutrality 
proclaimed by that government. Its effect is to prolong this struggle, 
destroy legitimate commerce of British subjects, and excite in this country 
feelings of deep alienation. 

Pray bring this subject to the notice of Earl Russell, and ask for inter- 
vention in some form which will be efficient. 



47 

Our consuls in London and Liverpool can furnish you with all the 
information you will require. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., <$c, 8fC., SfC. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 
[Extracts.] 



No. 131.] Legation of the United States, 

London, March 13, 1862. 

Sir: In obedience to the instructions contained in your despatch No. 184, 
of the 14th of February, I have addressed a note to Lord Russell in regard 
to the conduct of the master of the British steamer General Miramon, a copy 
of which is herewith transmitted. 

It will be perceived that I have ventured to introduce another and a dif- 
ferent cause of complaint, which suggested itself to me in the perusal of the 
report of the discussion in both houses of Parliament on the blockade. I 
have done so, not in the expectation of effecting any purpose of checking 
the notorious tendency of the commercial classes, but rather to put on 
record on the part of the government of the United States the consciousness 
of its existence; for the time may come when there will be attempts to 
deny it. There are people in England who still pretend that the complaints 
which brought on the war of 1812 were ill founded. But for the evidence 
perpetuated by the official records of the government of the United States 
this story might become the established faith of the nation. And so it may 
be in the event of a restoration of our affairs. It will probably be affirmed 
here that there was a rigid abstinence throughout our time of trial from all 
attempts to do us injury. In opposition to this, it may be as well to have 
it in our power to show that, outside of the lines of the rebel States, nearly 
all the active sympathy and positive assistance has come from the subjects 
of Great Britain. At this very moment the means which the insurgents 
have to carry on the war are derived from them, and vessels are fitting out 
or actually on the way to supply them continually with more. 

I transmit a copy of a note just received from Lord Russell, in acknowl- 
edgment of mine. It will probably be followed by explanations. 

You will scarcely have failed to observe in the course of the late discussion 
in both houses of Parliament the nature of the animus that pervades the 
greater number of members towards the United States. It consists not so 
much of partiality for one side over the other as of disinclination to both 
and desire that their political power should be diminished by a permanent 
separation. Even Lord Russell himself, though perhaps not conscious of 
the influence that prompts it, distinctly betrays the tendency in his remarks 
on the blockade. I am told by one of the members that the feelings of the 
House of Commons were perceptibly with Mr. Gregory in his speech, at the 
same time that they would not dispute the soundness of the policy of the 
ministry. It is advisable that the government of the United States should 
clearly understand this distinction, for upon its adaptation of a system to 
the emergency will greatly depend the chance of preserving the present 
position of the two countries towards each other. The successes of the 
campaign have done much for us. I trust they may continue. But they 



48 

must not be made to depend merely upon good fortune. The stake is too 
great here to be risked on the passions of ignorant or inexperienced men at 
home. If we do not mean to give to the evil-inclined of this hemisphere the 
opportunity to turn the scale in favor of our enemies in the other, we must 
take care to adhere to a policy which will, by its ultimate success, prove at 
once our own capacity to guide the country through its perils and the fallacy 
of the predictions of failure so confidently paraded by those whose wish is 
father to the thought. 

We now anxiously await the news by every steamer, but not for the same 
reasons as before. The pressure for interference here has disappeared. It 
will arise again only in the event of some very decided reverse. Hence we 
look more for the evidence of sensible and gradual progress than for an 
immediate triumph. On many accounts this last result would scarcely seem 
to be desirable, and especially if the attempt to attain it might lead to the 
possibility of a corresponding reverse. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



3Ir. Adams to Earl Bussell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, March 10, 1862. 

My Lord : It is with much regret that I am constrained to lay before you 
the copy of a letter addressed to the Department of State by the consul gen- 
eral of the United States at Havana, containing a serious complaint against 
the conduct of the master of the British steamer General Miramon, off 
the port of Mobile, in the month of May last. 

It would appear from the statements therein made, if in accordance with 
the facts, that Captain Golding took advantage of a privilege granted to 
him to enter the port of Mobile, upon his profession of a desire to perform an 
act of humanity, to abuse the confidence thus placed in him, by discharging 
one cargo of merchandise, and taking off another, in violation of the block- 
ade known to be established at that place. 

It is almost needless to remind your lordship how much the disposition to 
relieve to neutral nations the inconveniences inevitably attending a block- 
ade must be affected by the misconduct of such of their citizens as prove 
to have no respect for moral obligations. It is not without regret that I am 
compelled to add that this is by no means the only instance which has come 
within my observation of a desire of British citizens to interfere with the 
blockade in every manner possible. Not only have the newspapers in Great 
Britain contained advertisements of vessels about to depart with the de- 
clared intention of violating it, but I have reason to believe that respecta- 
ble assurance companies in London have gone so far as to establish a 
specific rate of premium at which they are prepared to guarantee the prop- 
erty engaged in such unlawful ventures. The effect of such conduct, in 
weakening the confidence which my countrymen desire to feel in the friendly 
disposition of the people of Great Britain, is easily to be conceived. It is 
no part of my intention in making this representation to imply the existence 
of any desire on the part of her Majesty's ministers or of the British nation 
at large to give the smallest countenance to such hostile demonstrations. 

My purpose is rather to solicit such action, if it be within the power of tha 



49 

government as may, by putting the seal of public reprobation upon a single 
well-authenticated act of dishonesty, serve to deter other evil-minded per- 
sons from pursuing the same path in future. 

Praying your lordship to accept the assurances of my highest considera- 
tion, I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, SfC, fyc, fyc. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, March 13, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 
10th instant, calling attention to the conduct of the captain of the British 
steamer General Miramon, as reported to your government by the United 
States consul at the Havana, in discharging a cargo of merchandise and 
taking off another at Mobile ; the captain of the General Miramon hav- 
ing been allowed to enter that port while under blockade, in consequence 
of his having stated to the commander of the blockading squadron that his 
object in going to Mobile was to perform an act of humanity. You also 
call my attention to the number of vessels lading cargoes in -this country 
with the evident intention of running the blockade, and you request that 
her Majesty's government will take such action in the matter as may be 
within their power. 

I have the honor, in reply, to state that, if the facts as alleged against 
the captain of the General Miramon are not susceptible of a satisfactory 
explanation, her Majesty's government would much regret that a British 
shipmaster should have abused the confidence of the commander of the 
United States blockading squadron ; and, as regards the second point to 
which you call my attention, I have to assure you that the matter shall 
have the due consideration of her Majesty's government. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 209.] Department of State, 

Washington, March 15, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of February 28, No. 124, has been received. The 
information which it brings of the improved condition of public opinion in 
Great Britain in regard to our domestic affairs is highly gratifying. 

Since the date of my last despatch the Union forces have gained decided 
advantages. The financial and moral, as well as the physical elements of 
the insurrection seem to be rapidly approaching exhaustion. Now, when 
we so clearly see how much of its strength was derived from the hope of 
foreign aid, we are brought to lament anew the precipitancy with which 
foreign powers so unnecessarily conceded to it belligerent rights. The 
President trusts that you are sparing no efforts to convince Earl Russell 

4 



50 

that the time has come when that concession can be revoked with safety to 
Great Britain and advantage to the great material interests of that country. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., fyc., &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 210.] Department of State, 

Washington, March 11, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of February 21, No. 123, has been received. I have 
communicated to the navy the information it gives concerning the Oreto. 

The occupation of so many of the southern ports having been effected by 
our forces, and all of the others being now effectually invested, I apprehend 
that the illicit traffic which has been so flagrantly carried on from British 
ports will come to an end. 

It is difficult for us to understand here why the maritime powers in 
Europe do not at once rescind their decisions concerning belligerent rights 
to insurgents who cannot send forth or receive one single vessel either for 
purposes of war or of commerce. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., SfC., &c. 



[Circular. — No. 9.] 



Department of State, 
Washington, March 11, 1862. 

Sir: I am directed to inform you that the regulation of the department of 
the 19th of August, 1861, by which "no person was allowed to go abroad 
from a port of the United States without a passport either from this depart- 
ment or countersigned by the Secretary of State, nor any person allowed 
to land in the United States without a passport from a minister or consul of 
the United States, or, if a foreigner, from his own government, counter- 
signed by such minister or consul;" also, the regulation requiring the 
"loyalty of all Americans applying for passports or visas to be tested under 
oath," are hereby rescinded; the causes which required the issue of the 
above regulations having, it is to be hoped, ceased to exist. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq. 

(Same to all of the diplomatic and consular agents of the United States.) 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 132.] Legation of the United States, 

London, March 20, 1862. 

Sir: Late last evening I received despatches from the department num- 
bered from 194 to 198, both inclusive. Several of them are highly important, 
and I shall seize the earliest opportunity to act upon the suggestions they 



51 

contain in my communications with her Majesty's government. Indeed, 
you will before this have received my despatch, No. 131, of the 13th instant, 
which covered a copy of a note of mine to Lord Russell on the case of the 
General Miramon, drawn up in the sense conveyed in your No. 184, of the 
14th of February. As the efforts of disaffected parties here grow more and 
more desperate in proportion to the increase of the necessities on the other 
side of the water, I shall find occasion to renew the subject with additional 
means of illustration. 

I take it for granted that even in the midst of your engrossing occupa- 
tions you find sufficient time to glance at the report of the debates in Par- 
liament on subjects of interest to the United States, and more especially on 
international questions of rights on the ocean and of blockade in time of 
war. The most marked indication to be observed is the general sense of 
uneasiness at the change operated in the position of Great Britain as a 
maritime power by the enlargement gradually making of the privileges of 
neutral nations. Whilst on the opposition side you perceive a distinct dis- 
approval of the agreement made in 1856 at Paris, there is equally per- 
ceptible among the ministers a disposition to seize the first opportunity to 
annul the obligations which it has been thought to impose. The remarks 
of Sir George Cornwall Lewis upon the effect of war upon the measure, 
regarded merely as a treaty and not as new rules incorporated into the in- 
ternational law, are full of significance. Lord Palmerston has been not in- 
appropriately reminded of the difference between the tone of his speech at 
Liverpool in 1856 and that in the late debate, whilst even Lord Russell is 
quoted as having expressed the opinion that some modification of the decla- 
ration of Paris would seem to be almost indispensable. 

Such are the immediate effects of that which, at first blush, appeared to 
these enlightened gentlemen a great triumph in the case of the Trent. 
Such are the consequences of refusing to accept the adhesion of the United 
States to the declaration of Paris from an over-zealous desire to escape the 
effect of a precipitate admission of belligerent rights. Both these events 
have brought vividly to their observation the consideration of the position 
of Great Britain in the contingency of a war on the ocean. Like tlie dog in 
the. fable, in snatching at the shadow, they find they have lost the solid 
meat. A conflict with the United States would, as things are- now, at once 
transfer the whole carrying trade of Great Britain into the hands of the 
neutral nations of the continent of Europe. It is now becoming plain that, 
without the additional provision first suggested by Mr. Maury, English 
interests on the sea are in great jeopardy in time of war, and yet that, with 
the admission of it, the control of the ocean is forever lost. Whichever 
way they look there is difficulty. Self-interest being the cardinal point of 
the policy they seek to pursue, it is plain that the adoption of the declara- 
tion of Paris is a sacrifice of which they are beginning to repent. Not the 
least remarkable among the admissions made in this debate is that which 
specifies the danger of a war with the United States in the event of a per- 
sistence in their former doctrineTespecting the cargoes of neutral ships, at 
the time of the contest with Russia, as having been the main cause that 
prompted the concessions in that declaration. Thus it would seem that the 
idea of the growing power of the United States as one nation is- everywhere 
present to their imaginations as the great obstacle in the way of their con- 
tinued domination of the sea. Can it be wondered at if, under these cir- 
cumstances, the notion of a permanent separation of this power into two 
parts, one of which can be played off against the other, were not altogether 
unwelcome to their hearts ? 

To considerations of a similar kind are we indebted for the security that 
has been afforded to us in our present contest against interference with the 



52 

blockade. That there has been and still is a very strong inclination in the 
country to get rid of it is unquestionable. That but for its unavoidable 
connexion with possibilities of consequences in other and not very remote 
complications, an attempt of the kind would have been made, I am strongly 
inclined to believe. The argument that has overborne all these tendencies 
is drawn from the fear that such a step would only lead in the same direc- 
tion with the preceding ones taken at Paris. It would ultimately deprive 
Britannia of her power longer to rule the waves. The " entente cordiale? 7 
with France is not yet hearty enough to make such a result altogether 
acceptable even to the fancy. Neither are the relations with Russia so 
friendly as to render a voluntary release of the main instrument to keep 
her in check, a proposition to be entertained with favor. For these reasons 
no countenance will be given to any remonstrance against our blockade ; 
neither will the general reasoning of Mr. Cobden, in favor of limiting the 
right of blockade, find much response among people in authority. Even 
the admissions rendered necessary to establish a position in reclaiming the 
rebel emissaries on board the Trent will be limited, as far as may be, to 
shut the door against further concessions. 

It will then continue to depend upon the degree of concert established 
among those nations of the world which have ever upheld neutral rights, 
whether any real advance be made in the recognized doctrines of inter- 
national law or not, just as it has done in preceding times. Great Britain 
will concede only from a conviction that such a course is the safest for 
herself. The remedy for other countries is obvious. It is to unite in the 
labor of raising the obligations of specific contracts to the level of perma- 
nent international law, and to enforce the observation of a consistent sys- 
tem of policy upon any single power whenever it may venture to set up 
the promptings of its immediate interest as the only rule of action it thinks 
proper to abide by. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 213.] ' Department of State, 

Washington, March 25, 1862. 

Sir : I have no despatches from you since the date of my last acknowledg- 
ments. The events of the week have been striking and significant : — The 
capture of Newbern by Burnside, with the consequent evacuation of Beau- 
fort and Fort Macon by the insurgents, and the destruction by themselves 
of their own piratical steamer Nashvillej the rout of the insurgents, on 
their retreat from Winchester to Straslrarg, by Shields ; the victory of 
General Pope at New Madrid, and the bombardment of Island No. 10, in 
the Mississippi, by Commodore Foote. 

A movement of the main army of the Potomac down the river to Fortress 
Monroe is quietly going on, and demonstrations will soon be made against 
Norfolk and Richmond. 

We suppose our ocean expedition against New Orleans must, at this 
time, have reached the mouth of the Mississippi. 

There are some indications of reviving loyalty in Virginia and Tennessee. 

The bonds of the insurgents are now understood to be everywhere at a 
.discount of seventy-five per cent. While it .seems impossible that their 



53 

organization can be longer maintained, there are abundant indications that 
they will find guerilla warfare even more hopeless than privateering has 
proved to be. How much longer can the European states resist the ideas 
concerning this war which we submitted to them a year ago, and which 
they then so inconsiderately rejected ? 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 135.] Legation of the United States, 

London, March 21, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the reception from the department 
of despatches numbered from 199 to 208, inclusive. 

It will have come to your knowledge, by the reception of my despatch 
No. 131, of the 13th of March, that I had already acted in conformity with 
the suggestions contained in your No. 207, dated on the 11th, by addressing 
a note to Earl Russell in remonstrance against the notorious activity of the 
subjects of Great Britain in efforts to set at nought the blockade. To that 
communication I have not yet received a reply. The reception of a letter 
from Mr. Dudley, the consul at Liverpool, containing additional information 
to the same effect, supplied me with a new occasion to write to his lordship 
in the spirit of your despatch No. 196, of the 21th of February. A copy of 
this latest note, dated the 26th instant, is herewith transmitted. After a 
full conversation with Mr. Morse, we both arrived at the conclusion that the 
evidence in our possession would not sustain so broad a position as that 
contemplated in your letter ; for, whatever may have been the purposes of 
the confederate emissaries and their friends pending the difficulties connected 
with the Trent case — and I am inclined to believe they went to the full ex- 
tent indicated — I fancy they have shrunk within much smaller compass since 
that speck of war has disappeared. The activity is now mainly directed to 
the expediting of every species of supply through the means of steam 
vessels, which may themselves be turned to some account in the way of 
illicit trade or of piratical warfare. Of these last the Oreto seems to be the 
only one likely to prove formidable. I thought it, therefore, a good opportu- 
nity to place upon his lordship the responsibility of the consequences of 
permitting himself to be deluded by what I cannot help thinking the wilful 
blindness and credulous partiality of the British authorities at Liverpool. 
From the experience of the past, I have little or no confidence in the success 
of any application that may be made of the kind. It is not the less im- 
portant, for all that, to perpetuate the testimony for future use. That Great 
Britain did, in the most terrible moment of our domestic trial in struggling 
with a monstrous social evil she had earnestly professed to abhor, coldly 
and at once assume our inability to master it, and then become the only 
foreign nation steadily contributing in every indirect way possible to verify 
its prejudgment, will probably be the verdict made up against her by pos- 
terity on a calm comparison of the evidense. I do not mean to say that 
such has been the course of the whole people. A considerable portion of 
them in all classes have been actuated by nobler views. There is, through- 
out England, a great deal of warm though passive sympathy with America. 
But there is likewise an extraordinary amount of fear as well as of jealousy. 
And it is these last passions which have pervaded the mass of the governing 



54 

classes, until they have inscribed for the whole nation a moral and political 
record which no subsequent action will ever avail to obliterate. 

I am bound to notice, in several of your late despatches, a strong dispo- 
sition to press upon the British government an argument for a retraction 
of its original error in granting to the rebels the rights of a belligerent. 
There may come a moment when such a proceeding might seem to me likely 
to be of use. But I must frankly confess that I do not see it yet. The very 
last speech of Lord Russell in the House of Lords is, from beginning to end, 
inspired by an opposite idea. The final disruption of the United States and 
the ultimate recognition of the seceding States are as visible in every word 
of that address as they were in the letter of the same nobleman to Mr. 
Edwards on the 14th of May last. Lord Palmerston has entertained the 
same conviction. * * * The foreign policy of the government, upon 
which its friends almost exclusively depend for what is left it of popularity 
in the nation, rests upon this basis. * * * For these reasons I respect- 
fully submit to your consideration my doubts about the expediency of 
moving in this direction now. Indeed, should it so happen that the existing 
indications of an early termination of the struggle continue to multiply, 
there will be little occasion for further remonstrance of any kind here ; for 
the disposition to help a party once that it is felt to be certainly sinking is 
not very common among either political or commercial men ; and there are 
no others in great Britain who would stop to shed a tear over the fallen 
fortunes of the quasi belligerent of their own creation. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

[Enclosures.] 

1. Copy of Mr. Adams's note of March 25, to Earl Russell, on the Orcto, &c. 

2. Copy of Mr. Consul Dudley's note to Mr. Adams, of March 22, about the 
arming of the Oreto. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, March 25, 1862. 

My Lord : I have the honor to submit to your consideration the copy of a 
letter received from the consul of the United States at Liverpool, touching 
the case of the steam gunboat Oreto, which I have already made the subject 
of a communication some time ago. It is with great reluctance that I am 
driven to the conviction that the representations made to your lordship of 
the purposes and destination of that vessel were delusive, and that though 
at first it may have been intended for service in Sicily, yet that such an 
intention has been long since abandoned in fact, and the pretence has been 
held up only the better to conceal the true object of the parties engaged. 
That object is to make war on the United States. All the persons thus far 
known to be most connected with the undertaking are either directly em- 
ployed by the insurgents in the United States of America, or residents of 
Great Britain notoriously in sympathy with and giving aid and comfort to 
them on this side of the water. 



55 

It is with the deepest regret that the President directs me to submit to 
her Majesty's government a representation of the unfortunate effect pro- 
duced upon the minds of the people of the United States from the conviction 
that nearly all of the assistance that is now obtained from abroad by the 
persons still in arms against their government, and which enables them to 
continue the struggle, comes from the kingdom of Great Britain and its de- 
pendencies. Neither is this impression relieved by the information that the 
existing municipal laws are found to be insufficient, and do not furnish 
means of prevention adequate to the emergency. The duty of nations in 
amity with each other would seem to be plain, not to suffer their good faith 
to be violated by ill-disposed persons within their borders merely from the 
inefficacy of their prohibitory policy. Such is the view which my govern- 
ment has been disposed to take of its own obligations in similar cases, and 
such, it doubts not, is that of all foreign nations with which it is at peace. 
It is for that reason I deprecate the inference that may be drawn from the 
issue of the investigation which your lordship caused to be made in the case 
of the Oreto, should that vessel be ultimately found issuing safely from this 
kingdom and preying on the commerce of the people of the United States. 
Not doubting myself the sincerity and earnest desire of your lordship to do 
all that is within your power to fulfil every requirement of international 
amity, it is to be feared that all the favorable effect of it may be neutralized 
by the later evidence of adverse results. It is no part of my intention to 
imply the want of fidelity or of good-will in any quarter. I desire to confine 
myself closely within the pale of my dut} r , a representation of the precise 
causes of uneasiness between the two countries, and an earnest desire to 
remove them. Firmly convinced that the actual position of things in con- 
nexion with the hostile equipment in British waters by no means does justice 
to the true disposition of her Majesty's government, I am anxious to place 
the matter before your lordship in such a light as to obtain the evidence 
more perfectly to establish the truth. 

I am further instructed to say that, well aware of the embarrassment and 
losses sustained by the nations with which the United States are in amity, 
through the operation of the restrictive measures to which the government 
has felt itself obliged to have recourse in its efforts to suppress the insur- 
rection within its borders, it has ever been its desire to hasten the moment 
when it might be practicable to rescind them, consistently with the attain- 
ment of its great object. But to that end much must necessarily depend 
upon the degree in which co-operation with its policy, or the contrary, may 
be experienced from without. It is obvious that just in proportion to the 
success of the efforts made by the ill-intentioned people of foreign countries 
to violate the blockade must be the endeavors to enforce it with increased 
stringency. So also in proportion to the success of such persons in sup- 
plying, by violation of law, the insurgents with the means of continuing 
their resistance must be the delay in restoring to all honest people the cus- 
tomary facilities of trade aud intercourse to which they are justly entitled. 
It has not been without great regret that the government has been com- 
pelled to observe the extent to which her Majesty's flag has been abused to 
subserve the purposes of the disaffected, and thus to continue the present 
depressed condition of legitimate trade. A very great proportion of the 
vessels which attempted to violate the blockade appear to be fitted out 
directly from Great Britain or some of her dependencies. The effect of per- 
mitting such violations of good faith to go unnoticed by government is not 
merely to create an unfortunate degree of irritation in America, implicating 
many far beyond the sphere of the unworthy parties concerned in producing 
it, but to postpone proportionately the prospect of bringing about a better 
state of things. It is for this reason, as well as from a desire earnestly felt 



56 

by the President to maintain unbroken all the customary relations of amity 
with Great Britain, that I have been directed to make the present repre- 
sentation. Any suggestion of the means best adapted to remedy the evils 
complained of is deemed a matter exclusively within the competency of those 
in whom the decision to act is vested. Disclaiming every wish to solicit 
more than my government would in its turn be prepared under similar cir- 
cumstances to concede, and entertaining full confidence in the disposition of 
her Majesty's ministers on their part to act to the utmost of their ability in 
the same spirit, I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest 
consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obe- 
dient servant, 

CHAELES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Right Hon. Earl Russell, fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams. 

United States Consulate, 
Liverpool, March 22, 1862. 

Sir: The Oreto is still in the river. A flatboac has taken a part of her 
armament to her. A part of the crew of the steamer Annie Childs, which 
came to this port loaded with cotton, have just left my office. They tell me 
that Captain Bulloch is to command the Oreto, and that four other officers 
for this vessel came over in the Childs with them. The names of three are 
Young, Law, and Manet, or Maffit; the fourth was called Eddy. The two 
first are lieutenants, and the two last named midshipmen. They further 
state that these officers during the voyage wore naval uniforms; that they 
came on the Childs at a place called Smithville, some twenty miles down 
the river from Wilmington; that it was talked about and understood by all 
on board that their object in coming was to take command of this vessel 
which was being built in England for the southern confederacy. They fur- 
ther state that it was understood in Wilmington before they left that several 
war vessels were being built in England for the south. As they were 
coming up the river in the Childs as they passed the Oreto she dipped her 
flag to the Childs. I have had this last from several sources, and the addi- 
tional fact that the same evening after the arrival of this steamer a dinner 
was given on the Oreto to the officers who came over in the Childs. I un- 
derstand she will make direct for Madeira and Nassau. 
I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 

THOMAS H. DUDLEY. 

Hon. Charles F. Adams, 

United States Minister. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seivard. 

[Extract.] 

No. 137.] Legation of the United States, 

London, March 27, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit the copies of three notes received by 
me from Lord Russell. 

One of these is in reply to a letter of mine of the 28th of December, based 
upon an affidavit of Frederick Williams, sent to me by Mr. Morse. The 



57 

substance of it had been anticipated by the publication in the parliamentary 
papers of the account given by the governor of Bermuda to the secretary of 
state for the colonies of his reception of the Nashville. As it was there 
affirmed that this steamer had not been supplied from the government stores, 
I presume that Williams had been mistaken. The second is in answer to 
my note of the 24th of February, respecting the treatment of the Flambeau 
at Nassau. The report is quite in keeping with all that we hear is done in 
that nest of illicit trade with the rebels. I have not deemed it advisable to 
pursue the subject. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Earl Eussell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, March 24, 1862. 

Sir: In my note of the 1st of January, in which I acknowledged the 
receipt of your note of the 28th of December, enclosing the deposition of 
Frederick Williams, one of the crew of the Nashville, I had the honor to 
inform you that I should communicate with the secretary of state for the 
colonies with the view of obtaining from the governor of Bermuda a correct 
account of the representations as to the character of that vessel made to 
him by her commander. 

The statement of Frederick Williams, it should be remembered, was, that 
on the arrival of the Nashville at Bermuda the governor had gone on board, 
and that Captain Peagram had then informed him that the Nashville was 
not a navy vessel, but was strictly a merchant vessel. I have now the 
honor to inform you that the governor of Bermuda has assured her Majesty's 
government that that statement is in every respect untrue; that he never 
was on board the Nashville, and that the only persons belonging to that 
vessel with whom he had any communication were Captain Peagram and 
Colonel Peyton, who called upon him at the government house; that on the 
occasion of that interview no other person was present, and that no such 
remark was made to him by either of those gentlemen, nor indeed by any 
other person at any other time whatever. 

The governor has further stated that, being aware that Captain Hutton, 
royal navy, the superintendent of the dock yard, had been on board the 
Nashville, and thinking it possible that Frederick Williams might have 
mistaken that officer for the governor, and that some conversation which 
had passed between Captain Hutton and the officers of the Nashville had 
given rise to the statement Williams had made, the governor had referred 
to Captain Hutton, and had ascertained from him that he had been on board 
the Nashville in order to return Captain Peagram's visit, but that Captain 
Hutton had disclaimed any conversation such as that related by Williams, 
and had added that he was particularly cautious that nothing but common- 
place civilities should pass between himself and the commander of the 
Nashville. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient, 
humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., 8fC., fyc., SfC. 



58 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 

Foreign Office, March 25, 1862. 

Sir: I had the honor, on the 1st instant, to state to you that I had applied 
to the proper department of her Majesty's government for information as to 
the circumstances under which the authorities at Nassau had interdicted to 
the United States steamer Flamheau the use of a deposit of coal, the 
property of the United States government, existing at that place. 

In now communicating to you the result of the inquiries which have been 
instituted, I assume that the case which you had in view, when you formed 
your representation, was that of some coal which arrived at Nassau in 
December last in the United States schooners Caleb Stetson and W. S. 
Perry. 

It might perhaps be questioned whether the coal on board those vessels 
could in strictness be described as a deposit of coal existing at Nassau, but 
there seems no reason to doubt that it is to that coal that your letter refers. 
The facts in relation thereto are as follows: 

In the early part of December the Caleb Stetson arrived at Nassau 
with a cargo of three hundred tons of coal consigned to the United States 
consul at that port, and by the report and manifest, delivered at the revenue 
department, and signed officially by the United States consul as consignee, 
it appeared that such cargo had been shipped at Philadelphia for that port 
by " order of the United States Navy Department." The receiver general, 
having doubts as to the propriety of admitting this coal to entry, applied to 
the governor for instructions, and the governor, acting under legal advice, 
gave directions that the coal should be admitted to an entry and landing, 
but that the United States consul should be informed that it could not be 
permitted to be used in any manner which might involve a breach of the 
Queen's proclamation of the 13th of May last, and particularly that the coal- 
ing at Nassau of vessels of war of either of the belligerent powers could 
not be allowed without the express sanction of her Majesty's government 
having been first obtained. A letter to that effect was addressed by the 
colonial secretary to the United States consul. 

While this question was pending, another vessel, the W. S. Perry, laden 
with coal similarly consigned, had arrived at Nassau, and the United States 
consul, on receiving the above intimation, declined to have the coal landed, 
and expressed his determination to keep the same on board of the respective 
vessels in which it had been imported, until he should receive advices from 
his government in relation thereto. • 

On the 11th of December the United States vessel Flambeau arrived 
at Nassau, and on the following day the United States consul addressed to 
the governor a letter, in which he stated that the Caleb Stetson was leak- 
ing badly, and requested permission to land the c,oal then on board of her, 
or to discharge a part of it on board of the Flambeau ; in answer to which 
he was informed that, under the decision already arrived at, the coal could 
not be allowed to be transhipped to the Flambeau, but that there was no 
objection to its being landed. This privilege, although expressly asked for 
by the United States consul in his letter, he did not avail himself of. 

On the 13th of December the United States consul addressed to the acting 
colonial secretary a letter complaining of coal having been supplied by a 
merchant to the secessionist vessel Theodora, and asking whether such 
an act did not constitute a breach of the neutrality adduced in the case of 
the Flambeau, which vessel, he adds, " I begged permission to furnish 
with coal yesterday." 



59 

To this letter the governor caused an answer to be sent, in which the dis- 
tinction between the two cases was pointed out, and the decision not to 
supply coal to an armed vessel was adhered to. It was observed that the 
Theodora was a merchant vessel trading to the port of Nassau, and that 
being propelled by steam it was necessary, to enable her to pursue her occu- 
pation as a trader, that she should be supplied with coal. The furnishing 
this necessary article, therefore, for her use by a merchant in the way of 
trade was perfectly lawful, and could not be construed into a breach of 
neutrality. 

On the other hand, the Flambeau was avowedly an armed vessel in the 
service of the federal government. She had entered the port of Nassau and 
had remained there for some days without any apparent necessity for her doing 
so, and the authorities had not been informed of the object of her visit. To 
supply her with coal might, therefore, be to facilitate her belligerent opera- 
tions, and this would constitute an infraction of the neutrality prescribed 
by the Queen's proclamation of the 13th of May last. 

It was also pointed out that the cases of the James Adger and the 
Nashville, at Southampton, were not parallel cases. Those vessels were 
some thousands of miles distant from their respective homes, and to them 
consequently coal was an article of real necessity; whereas the Flambeau 
was within a very short distance of the ports of her own nation — Key West, 
for instance, where her necessities could readily be supplied. 

Moreover, it was incorrect to say that the application of the United States 
consul had been founded on the necessities of the Flambeau; his applica- 
tion was founded on the alleged necessities of the Caleb Stetson. 

I trust it will be apparent to you, from the foregoing statement, that the 
only object which the authorities at Nassau had in view was to preserve a 
strict neutrality. The obligation to do so was imposed by the Queen's proc- 
lamation above referred to, and the contiguity of the port of Nassau to the 
American coast was an additional reason for adhering strictly to its pro- 
visions. 

In these circumstances her Majesty's government could not withhold from 
the governor the approval to which he was entitled for the course which he 
had pursued. The ultimate decision of her Majesty's government on this 
question is contained in the rules and regulations laid down in my letter to 
the lord commissioners of the admiralty of the 21st of January last. I take 
it for granted that that letter has already been brought to your notice, but 
you will find it at the end of the printed papers lately laid before Parliament, 
and in the London Gazette of the 31st of January last. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

KUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., Sf-c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 218.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 1, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of March 13, (No. 131,) has been submitted to the 
President. . 

I have the pleasure of approving the manner in which you have presented 
the case of the British steamer Miramon to the notice of her Majesty's 
government. 



60 

I am glad, also, to learn that you anticipated my instructions in asking 
of Earl Russell explanations of the license allowed to underwriters in Liver- 
pool and London to insure British vessels engaged in violating the blockade. 
Your remarks in alluding to that subject are sagacious and just. It will, 
indeed, be well to have, in the end, a record of the unfriendly demonstrations 
and proceedings of the British government and people towards the United 
States during their present social disturbance. 

I confess, however, that, for my own part, I have not even thought of 
connecting these unkindnesses into a series for ultimate review. Imperti- 
nence, injustice, dictation, and violence abroad are naturally provoked by 
divisions which produce imbecility at home, and they are a part of the dis- 
cipline by which generous, but erring nations, are brought back to unity, 
harmony, independence, and self-respect. 

Besides, I have not failed to see that every wrong this country has been 
called to endure at the hands of any foreign power has been a natural, if 
not a logical, consequence of the first grave error which that power com- 
mitted in conceding to an insurrection, which would otherwise have been 
ephemeral, the rights of a public belligerent. It has seemed, therefore, 
to be wise, as well as more dignified, to urge the retrogression upon that 
false step, rather than to elaborate complaints of the injuries which have 
followed it. 

I shall not, in any case, be willing to assume as true the public interpreta- 
tion of the proceedings of the government which imputes their origin to a 
sentiment of hostility on the part of the British people. Such a sentiment 
would be so unworthy of a great nation, and so fatal to all hopes of concert 
between that nation and our own in advancing the interests of freedom,- 
civilization, and humanity, that I prefer to find the cause of any injustice of 
which we have to complain in a failure of the British government itself to 
understand the true character and condition of the unhappy civil strife in 
which we are engaged. 

Earl Russell, in the House of Lords, in the debate to which you have alluded, 
expressed the belief that this country is large enough for two independent 
nations, and the hope that this government will assent to a peaceful separa- 
tion from the insurrectionary States. A very brief sojourn among us, with 
an observation of our mountains, rivers, and coasts, and some study of our 
social condition and habits, would be sufficient to satisfy him, on the contrary, 
that the country is not too large for one such people as this, and that it is 
and must always be too small for two distinct nations until the people shall 
have become so demoralized by faction that they are ready to enter the 
course which leads through continued subdivision to ultimate anarchy. All 
the British speculations assume that the political elements which have been 
brought into antagonism here are equal in vigor and endurance. Nothing, 
however, is more certain than that freedom and slavery are very unequal in 
these qualities, and that when these diverse elements are eliminated, the 
former from the cause of sedition, and the latter from the cause of the 
government, then the government must prevail, sustained as it is by the 
co-operating sentiments of loyalty, of national pride, interest, ambition, and 
the permanent love of peace. 

These opinions were early communicated to the British government, so 
far as it was proper to express them in correspondence with a foreign state. 
That government seems to have acted upon different convictions. The time 
has probably come for the practical determination of the great issue which 
has thus been joined. Although the past seventy years of the life of the 
United States were years of prosperity, yet an unhappy alienation prevailed 
during all that time between them and Great Britain. I see the United 
States now resuming their accustomed career by a renewal of the principles 



61 

on which their existence depends. I doubt not that their future progress 
will be even more prosperous than the past. Let it be our endeavor to 
extirpate the seeds of animosity and cultivate relations of friendship with 
a nation that, however perversely it may seem to act for a time, can really 
have no interest or ambition permanently conflicting with our own. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWAKD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfO., fyc, fyo. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 220.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 2, 1862. 

Sir : The reports we receive from China show that the insurrection there 
is becoming veiy formidable, and they leave it doubtful whether the British 
and French forces now in China are adequate to secure the inviolability of 
the persons and property of the subjects and citizens of the western powers 
dwelling in the commercial cities of that Empire. It is a matter of deep 
regret to us that our troubles at home render it hazardous to withdraw a 
part of our great land and naval forces from operating here, and send them 
to China to co-operate with the forces of the allies there. As you are well 
aware, the continuance of the insurrection in the United States is due to the 
attitudes of Great Britain and France towards our country. It would seem 
to be desirable for those two states to have our co-operation in China in 
preserving a commerce of vast importance to them as well as to ourselves. 
That co-operation we could give if we were relieved from the necessity for 
maintaining a blockade and siege of our southern ports. Moreover, the 
question may well be asked, Where is this tendency to insurrection, which 
Great Britain and France seem to us to be practically, although unintention- 
ally, fostering, to end ? It breaks out in the Levant ; it grows flagrant on 
the China coasts ; it even lifts up its head in France. Is it not the interest 
of all great maritime states to repress, or at least to discourage it ? The 
President does not expect you to make any special or formal suggestion of 
these views to the British government, but it seems to him that you may 
properly use them, incidentally, with advantage in your intercourse with the 
British government and British society. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWAED. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, §c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 140.] Legation of the United States, 

London, April 3, 1862. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the depart- 
ment, numbered 209, 210, and 211. They make particular reference only 
to one subject, the revocation by Great Britain of her recognition of the 
insurgents as a belligerent. I have already in my despatch, No. 135, of the 
21th of March, submitted my views on the expediency of pressing the sub- 
ject at this time. After consultation with some of our friends, I still adhere 



62 

to the opinion. A few weeks more of news like that we have received for 
some time back may dispose of it without further difficulty. On the other 
hand, a contrary current would subject us to needless mortification in a re- 
fusal. There is no change worthy of note in the state of affairs here. The 
late naval action in Hampton roads has made a great sensation, and is re- 
garded as likely to work a complete change in the policy of this country in 
fortifications and the naval marine. You will not fail to observe the notice 
already taken of it in Parliament. The subject is to be resumed to-morrow 
night. The opinion of the military and naval efficiency of the United States 
has undergone an astonishing change within the last month. 

I transmit herewith a copy of Lord Russell's note to me of the 2tth, in 
reply to mine of the 25th of March, on the subject of the gunboat Orcto and 
the agency of British subjects in supplying aid to the rebels. The Oreto 
has sailed from Liverpool. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. G. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, March 2T, 1862. 

Sir : Upon receiving your letter of the 25th instant I immediately di- 
rected that the treasury and customs department should be requested to take 
such steps as may be necessary to ascertain whether the Oreto is equipped 
for the purpose of making war on the United States; and if that fact can be 
proved, to detain the vessel. 

The charge that nearly all the assistance now obtained from abroad by 
persons still in arms against the government of the United States, and which 
enables them to continue the struggle, comes from Great Britain and 
its dependencies, is somewhat vague. I believe the greater part of the arms 
and ammunition sent from this country to America during the struggle has 
gone to the United States. 

I agree with you in the statement that the duty of nations in amity with 
each other is not to suffer their good faith to be violated by ill-disposed per- 
sons within their borders, merely from the inefficiency of their prohibitory 
policy. But it is, at the same time, a duty not to punish persons on suspi- 
cion, without any proof of their evil intent. It is not the custom of this 
country to deprive any person of liberty or property without evidence of 
some offence. If such evidepce can be obtained, the laws are sufficient to 
prevent the accomplishment of their evil designs against friendly nations. 

You have not yourself hitherto furnished me with evidence that any ves- 
sel has received a hostile or warlike equipment in British waters, which has 
been afterwards used against the United States. The care that was taken 
to prevent the warlike equipment of the Nashville, in British waters, must 
be familiar to your recollection. 

With regard to co-operation with the policy of the United States in respect 
to the blockade, I must remind you that Great Britain has abstained, as far 
as possible, from complaints of the irregularity of the blockade which has 
been instituted. 

Her Majesty's government have been mindful of the suddenness of the 
danger with which the United States were threatened; of the inadequacy of 
the naval force then at the disposal of the government, and of the great 



63 

difficulty of blockading a coast of three thousand miles. But beyond for- 
bearance and a liberal interpretation of the law of nations in favor of the 
United States her Majesty's government cannot go. If by co-operation 
with the policy of the United States is meant either taking part in the civil 
war still raging, or imposing restraints on the Queen's subjects unknown 
to international law, I cannot undertake that her Majesty's government will 
adopt either of those courses. It would be an unheard-of measure to pro- 
hibit merchants from sending ships to sea destined to the southern ports. 
Should such ships attempt to violate the blockade, capture and condemna- 
tion are the proper penalty of such attempts. No authority can be found 
for any other. 

But while these attempts are made on the one side, the United States gov- 
ernment have willingly received in the ranks of their army British subjects, 
who violate the Queen's proclamation, in order to serve against the confed- 
erates. Nay, the law of the United States, by which parents can prevent 
the enlistment of their sons, being minors, has been set aside, to the preju- 
dice of British subjects, the fathers and mothers of thoughtless lads of six- 
teen or seventeen years of age. 

These evils are perhaps inseparable from the unhappy contest now carried 
on in America. I can only trust it may have a speedy termination, suitable 
to the reputation of the United States, and conducive to the future happiness 
of all the inhabitants of a country so lately prosperous and united. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

EUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fy-c., &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 224.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 3, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of the 1th of March (No. 128) was received. 

Every new instance of running the blockade excites equally surprise and 
impatience. The escape of the Nashville from Beaufort was especially pro- 
voking. I can account for the deficiency of steam vessels there only upon 
the ground that they were wanted for the emergency then expected at 
Norfolk. The late achievement of the Merrimack in Hampton roads at first 
perplexed and alarmed all our naval agents and officers. They have, how- 
ever, made preparations for her coming out again, and they express entire 
confidence in their ability to master her. Meantime the blockade is actually 
becoming a siege, which we trust will soon result in occupation of the 
insurrectionary ports. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC., &c, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 225.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 4, 1862. 

Sir: I regret to be obliged to revert to a subject upon which I have 
already written to you more than once with deep concern, namely, the fitting 
out of vessels of war in England for the service of the insurgents. 



64 

The report now comes to us that one or two iron-clad vessels for that 
service are ready in England, and that Captain Bullock is there with men 
to bring them to our shores. 

It is notorious that while the government of Great Britain have formally 
departed from the friendly relations which existed between the two countries 
before the insurrection began, and have assumed an attitude of neutrality 
between the belligerents and this government, British subjects have become 
aiders and abettors of the insurrection in every possible way, and that the 
arms, ammunition, and military stores of the insurgents are constantly 
shipped from British ports, and those who bring them are provided in every 
form with directions and facilities for entering our country in violation of 
our blockade. 

This government entertains no more doubt of the stability of this federal 
Union than her Majesty's government do of the stability of the union of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Under such circumstances, 
the question arises whether the government of Great Britain are actually 
indifferent upon the subject of the relations which must exist between the 
two countries. Are they willing that, so long as the insurgents shall be 
able to protract a hopeless warfare against the peace and happiness of the 
American people, they shall avail themselves of the aid and sympathy of a 
sordid class of persons in the British islands, to whom the disturbance of 
lawful commerce and the subversion of all honest interests of either country 
are of no value when weighed against their own gains from a hostile and 
unlawful trade ? 

The President does not believe that the British government are consciously 
tolerating the injurious practices of which I have complained. But I am 
instructed to ask you once more to bring these complaints to the notice of 
Earl Russell, in the hope that the time may have at last come when British 
subjects, deliberately and wickedly engaged as abettors in the existing war- 
fare against the government, may be subjected to some restraint, or at least 
be made to feel her Majesty's severe displeasure. The President would not 
be content without doing all that lies in his power to arrest a growing dis- 
content on the part of the American people, fast ripening into an alienation 
which would perplex and embarrass the two nations for an indefinite period. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. • 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC, &c, SfO. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 226.] Department op State, 

Washington, April 8, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of March 20, No. 132, is before me. 

It brings information of no occurrence requiring especial instructions. 
On the other hand, I find nothing important to add now, when the mail is 
closing, to the facts and suggestions contained in my despatches previously 
written. Our armies, held everywhere in the leash, are at the point of be- 
ing let loose. Important transactions must occur within a few days. It is 
the part of wisdom to be neither sanguine of success nor disturbed with 
apprehensions of failure. If the tide of military success shall continue to 
flow full and strong, we can consent to wait the reluctant but inevitable 
return of maritime nations to the fraternal positions they abandoned when 



65 

faction undertook to undermine their fidelity as the most effectual way to 
compass our destruction. 

I have just signed, with Lord Lyons, a treaty which I trust will be ap- 
proved by the Senate and by the British government. If ratified, it will 
bring the African slave trade to an end immediately and forever. Had such 
a treaty been made in 1808, there would now have been no sedition here, 
and no disagreement between the United States and foreign nations. We 
are indeed suffering deeply in this civil war. Europe has impatiently con- 
demned and deplored it. Yet it is easy. to see already that the calamity 
will be compensated by incalculable benefits to our country and to mankind. 
Such are the compensations of providence for the sacrifices it exacts. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c, &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No. 142.] Legation of the United States, 

London, April 11, 1862. 

gjR. if:******* 

I transmit herewith the copy of a note of Lord Russell, dated the 8th of 
April, enclosing a second report on the outfit of the Oreto. In spite of the 
admission that troops and guns are on board, her Majesty's officers still 
insist upon being blind to the destination of the vessel, and the government 
tolerates the abuse. 

Since the date of my last I have taken advantage of the absence of any 
important business here to avail myself of the permission granted me a 
short time since to visit Paris for the purpose of conferring with Mr. Dayton. 
I have derived great benefit from the communications made to me, and they 
will lead to a corresponding change of policy on my part. I can only say 
now that I shall, as soon as possible, request a conference with Lord Rus- 
sell in order to re-enforce the arguments that have been presented from the 
other side of the channel. The effort will be to concentrate the responsi- 
bility for any further protraction of the struggle as much as possible on the 
government here. I shall defer all further discussion of the subject until I 
can report the result of the conference. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, 



Foreign Office, April 8, 1862. 

Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and, with reference 
to his letter of the 21th ultimo, has the honor to transmit to him the accom- 
panying copies of a report and its enclosures which have been received from 
the board of customs respecting the vessel Oreto. 
5 



66 



Board of Customs, Custom-house, April 6, 1862, 

To the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty 's treasury : 

Your lordships having- referred to us the annexed letter from Mr. Ham- 
mond, transmitting-, by desire of Earl Russell, copy of a further letter ad- 
dressed by the United States consul at Liverpool to Mr. Adams, the United 
States minister at this court, in which it is again affirmed that the Oreto 
is being fitted out as a vessel of war for the southern confederacy, and 
various statements are reported in support of that assertion, and request- 
ing that your lordships would instruct this board to give directions that the 
Oreto might be vigilantly watched, and that if any armament prohibited 
by the foreign enlistment act should be discovered the vessel might be at 
once detained, we report: That on the receipt of your lordships' reference 
we directed our collector at Liverpool immediately to inquire into the further 
allegations made in regard to the Oreto, and to govern himself in accord- 
ance with the instructions contained in Mr. Hammond's letter ; and having 
received the report of the collector, we find that the vessel in question was 
registered on the 3d ultimo in the name of John Henry Thomas, of Liver- 
pool, as sole owner; that she cleared on the following day for Palermo and 
Jamaica in ballast, but did not sail until the 22d, the day on which the 
American consul's letter is dated, having a crew of fifty-two men, all British 
with the exception of three or four, one of whom only was an American. 
She had no gunpowder, nor even a signal gun, and no colors saving Mar- 
ryatt's code of signals and a British ensign, nor any goods on board except- 
ing the stores enumerated on the accompanying copy of her victualling bill. 
With regard to the statements in the letter of the consul, the collector 
further reports that it is clear the passengers brought by the Annie 
Childs, the vessel therein mentioned, which has recently arrived from one 
of the southern States, were not intended to form any portion of the crew 
of the Oreto, inasmuch as they were still in Liverpool, and that the dip- 
ping of the ensign on board the latter vessel on the arrival of the Annie 
Childs, as far as the collector had been enabled to ascertain, was intended 
as a compliment to one of the Cunard steamers and another vessel which 
saluted the Annie Childs on her arrival, the masters of the several vessels 
being known to one another. 

THOS. F. FREEMANTLE. 

GRENVILLE C. BERKELEY. 



VICTUALLING BILL. 

Pilot, , granted number, (662.) 

Port of Liverpool, " Oreto." 

Honded and drawback stores in the , James A. Dugud, master, for Palermo 

and Jamaica. 

Men, 52; passengers or troops, — ; guns, — ; 118 tons. 

Net quantities taken on board. 



Spirits, foreign. 



Rum, per gallon 

Brandy, per gallon 

Geneva. 

Other spirits not sweetened. 



2 cases — 54 gallons. 
10 cases — 20 gallons. 



67 



Spirits, British or plantation. 
Eum. 

Gin 

Whiskey 

Other spirits not sweetened. 

Wine , 

Wine for drawback. 
Beer for drawback. 
Vinegar. 

Tea. per pound 

Coffee 

Coffee, roasted, (for drawback.) 

Cocoa. 
Cocoa paste. 

Sugar, refined, per cwt 

Sugar for drawback 

Sugar, unrefined 

Molasses. 

Tobacco for drawback, per pound- 

negrohead 

roll. 



Cigars 

Pepper. 

Eaisins, per cwt 

Currants , 

Pigs. 
Prunes. 
Plums. 
Sundries. 
Surplus stores. 

Examined. 

Cleared March 4, 1862. 



8 cases — 16 gallons. 
12 cases — 23^-f gallons. 

20 cases — 40 gallons. 



3 chests, 5 canisters — 240 pounds. 

4 bags — 646 pounds. 



1 barrel — 1 cwt. 9 lbs 

5 

3 



bags, | 
barrels, ) 



13 cwt. 2 qrs. 12 lbs. 



}■ 



3 boxes— 63 lbs. 

2 boxes — 10 pounds. 

12 boxes— 2 cwt. 1 qr. 26 lbs 
11 jars — 2 cwt. 1 qr. 18 lbs. 



J. MUDIE SEARCHER, Collector. 

SAMUEL WAKEHUM, Broker. 

Residence, No.. 11 Park Lane. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 228.] 



Department of State, 
Washington, April 14, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of the 2?th of March, (No. 135,) has been considered 
by the President. 

The continued advances of the national forces, pressing the insurgents 
equally on the coast and in the interior, have awakened earnest desires and 
confident expectations of a speedy restoration of peace, with the soothing 
benefits of internal and foreign commerce. The French government urges 
us strongly, though not impatiently, to extend facilities for the exportation 
of cotton. While the President feels well assured that in any case the 
opening of our ports following the anticipated successes of our arms is not 
distant, he is impressed with the opinion that it might be safely conceded at 
once, if the expectations of recognition of sovereignty by the principal 



68 

maritime powers which the insurgents have built upon their first recogni- 
tion as belligerents were removed. We are aware that the action of the 
maritime powers in the direction proposed must probably depend on their 
coming to the conviction that the insurgent cause has so far failed as to 
render their ultimate success in casting off the federal authority hopeless. 
It is the object of this paper to enable you to show the British government 
that such is the actual situation of affairs in this country. Your despatch 
now before me intimates the opinion on your part that it would be indis- 
creet at the date of that paper to raise the question. A month full of mili- 
tary successes resulting in great changes in the situation of the parties has, 
however, elapsed since you received the information upon which that opinion 
was founded, and I am instructed to present the subject again, leaving you, 
however, absolutely free to determine for yourself the time and the manner 
when and in which you will bring it to the attention of Earl Russell. The 
President well understands that partisan and even national interests exist- 
ing in Great Britain and at the same time imperfectly understood here must 
have much influence upon the exercise of the discretion thus confided to you. 
His object will be attained if you are only armed with the facts and the 
arguments proper for the occasion when it shall seem to yourself to have 
arrived. 

This despatch is accompanied by a map of the middle, southern, and 
southwestern States, which will elucidate the views I have occasion to 
submit. 

It is known that all the free States are loyal to the Union; that the insur- 
rection had its spring in the slave States, and that it aims to separate them 
all from the Union, and embrace them in a new sovereign confederacy. 
There is not one regiment, or battalion, or even company of men, which was 
organized in or derived from the free States and Territories, in arms any- 
where against the Union. Some regiments derived from the border slave 
States are found in the slave States in hostilities against the federal authori- 
ties, while others equally or more numerous are supporting them there. 
Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, all border slave States, re- 
spectively, have contributed large bodies of men to the armies of the Union. 
Missouri, a border slave State west of the Mississippi, has been cleared of 
all organized military bodies of insurgents, and for some time past has 
ceased to be troubled by guerillas. The battle of Pea Ridge, in which 
General Curtis beat Van Dorn, Price, Mcintosh, and McCullough, has firmly 
established General Curtis and the national colors in the northwestern part 
of Arkansas, an interior slave State. No insurrectionary forces remain in 
Kentucky, also a border slave State. All the fortified positions of the in- 
surgents have been abandoned, and the southern border of Tennessee, an 
interior slave State, has been crossed by the advancing armies of the nation, 
which, after the victories of Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, the occupation of 
Bowling Green, Nashville, Murfreesborough, and Columbus, a few days since 
captured the fortified position of Island No. 10, in the Mississippi, with one 
hundred heavy guns, thirty pieces of field artillery, six thousand prisoners, 
and on the same day, after a two days' contest, repulsed and beat the insur- 
gent army, said to be eighty thousand strong, at Pittsburg Landing, with 
the loss of their chief, General A. S. Johnston. Four days afterwards Gen- 
eral Mitchell, with a column of the same federal army, by a forced march, 
occupied, without loss, Huntsville, in the State of Alabama, one of the Gulf 
slave States, and captured some two hundred prisoners, fifteen locomotive 
engines, and many railroad carriages, which will be very useful in future 
operations. Immediately afterwards he captured Decatur and the Chatta- 
nooga Junction, and thus got possession of one hundred and ten miles of 
the railroad. This stroke is important, as it cuts off the great artery of 



69 

connexion by railroad between Memphis and Richmond and the southeastern 
slave States. Jacksonville, in Eastern Tennessee, has been visited by our 
forces, and thus it is seen that they are approaching Knoxville, the principal 
city in that always intensely loyal part of the State of Tennessee. 

The western part of Virginia has been cleared of insurgents and General 
Fremont has put his army in motion. From Monterey and Moorfield two 
columns are advancing. 'General Banks is ascending the valley of the She- 
nandoah, while General Blenker's division is on the march from Warrcnton 
towards Strasburg, to unite with General Banks in the moment which 
promises to cut the Virginia and Covington railroad first, then the South- 
western Valley railroad of Virginia, and thus sever communication which 
connects Richmond, the seat of the insurrection, and Knoxville, before 
named. General McDowell, with the army covering Washington, occupies 
the region between Washington and the Rappahannock, and the news comes 
to-day that the insurgents are abandoning their entire line on that river and 
retiring to the vicinity of Richmond. The Eastern Shore of Virginia has 
been relieved by General Lockwood's brigade from the small insurgent force 
which early organized itself there. General McClellan on the York river, 
and General Wool at Fortress Monroe, with the main body of the army of 
the Potomac, lay siege upon Yorktown, which is defended by the insurgent 
leaders Lee, J. E. Johnston, and Magruder. 

General Burnside occupies the cities and sounds and coasts of eastern 
North Carolina, and besieges Fort Macon, which is cut off from all succor. 
These forces have cleared all the insurgent bodies out of a slave territory 
once occupied by them, containing one hundred and fifty thousand square 
miles and a population of three millions. 

One-half of the coast of South Carolina, the whole coast of Georgia, and 
the harbors, cities, and coasts of East Florida, are occupied by the army 
which lately was under the command of General Sherman, who has been 
replaced by General Hunter; and the fortresses of the Florida reef, situate 
at Key West, the Tortugas islands, and at the harbors of Tamba Bay and 
Cedar Keys; Fort Pickens, commanding the entrance to Pensacola; Ship 
Island, Biloxi, and Pass Christian, on the coast of Mississippi, as well as the 
head of the delta of the Mississippi river, all are occupied and securely 
held by national forces. Fort Pulaski, on the Savannah river, after a bom- 
bardment of several days, surrendered yesterday. There is scarce a harbor 
on the whole coast, from the Chesapeake to the Mississippi, which is not her- 
metically sealed by a force occupying some island or headland, as well as 
by the blockading squadron. Charleston, St. Mark's, Apalachicola, and Mo- 
bile, although not yet occupied by troops, are closely blockaded by our fleet. 
New Orleans is threatened by the bomb fleet of Captain Porter, who is as- 
cending the Mississippi river, and by the iron-clad flotilla of Captain Foote, 
which has just sailed from the late investing stronghold of No. 10, and is 
now with General Pope's army under convoy, descending the same river. 
A few days, we think, will complete the opening of the Mississippi, and 
restore to the northwestern States that natural passage for their immense 
commerce with the other States and with foreign countries which the insur- 
gents have so insanely attempted to close, in violation of all the laws of 
trade and even of nature itself. 

The national forces, among whom there is not one conscript or involun- 
tary soldier, according to the official returns, consist of seven hundred and 
eleven thousand men. They are amply provided with arms of precision, 
with artillery, with wagons, and other transports; horses, tents, clothing, 
and all the provisions and apparel of war. Provisions are cheap and abun- 
dant. The magazines contain clothing and tents for several months' supply, 



70 

and the people still press upon the quartermastei general their offers of ad- 
ditional supplies. 

An order from the Secretary of "War to receive no more volunteers is 
bringing back upon him remonstrances and entreaties, not only from indi- 
viduals but from States, under which he is constrained to accept regiments 
newly filled. Twenty-five thousand prisoners, carefully guarded in the loyal 
States, are astonished at finding themselves better fed, better clothed, and 
more humanely treated than when bearing arms against their country at the 
call of factious and treasonable chiefs. These chiefs have for months past 
been resorting to levies en masse, or to drafts, forcing the young and the 
aged, loyal, and the disloyal — all alike, and however unwilling — into their 
unlawful service. 

Perhaps a million of men, thus variously brought into the field, are now 
in arms in a country which, one year ago, had a military force of only 
twelve thousand men. All the troops of the Union are well equipped, well 
drilled, and disciplined; they are good marksmen, and have patriotism and 
courage. They make much and skilful use of the bayonet and always with 
success. They are everywhere advancing. They have taken every position 
they have approached, and have won, with an important exception, not only 
every battle but even every skirmish in which, within the last three months, 
they have engaged. 

Missouri, Kentucky, a great part of Tennessee, Western Virginia, and 
Eastern Florida, have been abandoned by the insurgent leaders. The na- 
tional flag has been planted securely at one or more points in every State 
except Texas. The richest part of the territory claimed by the revolution- 
ists for the seat of their pretended confederacy has been reclaimed from 
their rule and their attempts at taxation; and there is left to support the 
enormous expenses of the insurrection only the States which produce little 
else than cotton; and what cotton they now have on hand the insurgents 
threaten to burn, because they have no outlet for its exportation, and no 
hope of rescuing it from the returning allegiance of the people to the na- 
tional Union. 

It is believed that this survey of the military position of the government 
may serve to satisfy Great Britain that those statesmen here and abroad 
who, a year ago, mistook a political syncope for national death and dissolu- 
tion, altogether misunderstood the resources, the character, and the energies 
of the American Union. The blood that at first retreated to the heart is now 
coursing healthily through all the veins and arteries of the whole system; 
and what seemed at first to be a hopeless paralysis, was in fact but the be- 
ginning of an organic change to more robust and vigorous health than the 
nation has ever before enjoyed. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 144.] Legation of the United States, 

London, April 16, 1862. 

Sir : I have this morning received despatches from the department num 
bered from 214 to 217, inclusive. I yesterday succeeded in obtaining the 
expected conference with Lord Russell. I began by reading to him the 
copy of your despatch No. 8, containing instructions to Mr. Burlingaine, in 



71 

China, agreeably to your direction, and I made an offer to leave a copy with 
him, which he accepted. 

I then opened the main topic with which I was charged. I expressed to 
his lordship my reluctance to touch upon any subject which looked like 
complaint at this time, when everything was so quiet between the two 
countries, but it seemed to be the duty of public men not to confine them- 
selves merely to the study of the present. If there were reasons to suspect 
the existence of causes of irritation which might lead to serious differences 
between nations, even at a remote period, it was the part of prudence to 
make an early effort to remove them. In this sense, I desired to speak of 
the tendency of the efforts continually making here, reports of which were 
sent by every steamer to America, to supply to the insurgents the means 
of persevering in their resistance to the government. It could not admit of 
a doubt that their hopes of final success, though much weakened, were still 
buoyed up by the encouragement obtained in the supplies from here. On 
the other hand, the people of the United States drew inferences of a hostile 
disposition to them in a corresponding degree from the same sources. I 
was bound in frankness to add that the various occurrences which confirm 
this notion were too apt to revive the recollection of the original measure 
to which they were traced as natural consequences. I had reason to believe 
the government to be so strongly convinced of the fact that the original 
recognition of the rebels as a belligerent was their only remaining moral 
support, that I felt it my duty once more to bring the subject to the atten- 
tion of her Majesty's government. Although I had heretofore received re- 
peated requests so to do, I had been indisposed to press it, from a belief 
that any such movement would be unavailing. In a late visit to Paris, 
however, where I had conferred with Mr. Dayton, I had learned from him 
that in a personal conversation with the Emperor, in the course of which 
the latter had represented the urgency of the necessity for cotton, he had, 
in reply, dwelt upon the difficulties experienced from the effects of the Em- 
peror's recognition of the belligerent right of the rebels in prolonging the 
war, and had pressed for the withdrawal of it. The Emperor had not shown 
himself averse to entertaining the question, but had referred to his co-op- 
eration with Great Britain and to the necessity it imposed of consultation 
with it in this case. The knowledge of this fact had determined me on my 
side to propose the same thing here. I should not go into any repetition 
of the argument on the subject, but should content myself with expressing 
the conviction that nothing would more conduce to establish perfect confi- 
dence in the disposition of Great Britain, and to accelerate the reopening 
of the customary intercourse and trade between the two countries, than 
such a step. 

His lordship alluded, first, to my report of Mr. Dayton's conversation with 
the Emperor. He presumed it was confidential, and therefore he could take 
no cognizance of it. All that he was bound to know was what had been 
mentioned by Mr. Thouvenel to Lord Cowley of Mr. Dayton's conference 
with him. He had only learned by this that there was some general con- 
versation. He did not learn that Mr. Dayton had offered any distinct prop- 
osition. No reference of the matter had been made to this government by 
the French. I said this was precisely the point I desired to arrive at. The 
impression I received was that such a reference had been promised. 

I did not tell Lord Russell the most significant portion of Mr. Dayton's 
report of his conversation with the Emperor, because I felt bound not to 
commit him. From the tenor of yours to me (No. 217) of the 31st March, 
I am led to believe you are fully possessed of it. My object was simply to 
see where the responsibility for the policy rests. A discovery which a 



72 

comparison of the tone maintained by the respective parties renders it not 
difficult to reach. 

His lordship enlarged once more upon the magnitude of the region en- 
gaged in the revolt, and upon the urgency of the call to provide for the new 
emergency. He attempted an analogy between the course taken by Great 
Britain in this case and that of the United States towards South America 
after the revolt of the dependencies of Spain. Subsequent events had only 
confirmed the correctness of the decision. For the very efforts to which the 
United States had been compelled to resort proved the magnitude of the 
task undertaken, and they were still engaged in pursuing their object with- 
out absolute certainty of success. The wish of Great Britain was to remain 
neutral and impartial. They had no cause of quarrel with the southern 
States. We might fight it out with them. The southern people seemed, 
from the accounts in the morning papers, to be finding equal fault on their 
side for their not taking part with them. We on our part seemed to be 
urging for what was equivalent to joining our side to put them down, yet 
that was a course which we had professed not to desire. 

To this I replied that very certainly we did not desire it. What we did 
desire was, that foreign nations would leave the matter entirely in our 
hands. What we complained of was, that the course adopted was not neu- 
trality. That it had not been so regarded by the insurgents themselves' 
was made apparent in the very documents published at the opening of Par- 
liament ; for it was certain that the early overtures made by the two powers 
to obtain a sanction of the declaration of Paris had been construed at Rich- 
mond, and, as I thought, with reason, as a ground to expect a further ac- 
knowledgment. It seemed to me they had some right to complain of a dis- 
appointment of their hopes then raised. I begged, furthermore, to advance 
an opinion that there was not an example in all the history of the United 
States or of Great Britain, nay I might say of any civilized nation of the 
world, of so precipitate a recognition of belligerent rights to insurgents as 
this one of which we were treating. If there was such an instance, I should 
be glad to see it. Upon the basis thus made there could be no question 
that much of the perseverance in resistance had rested, and did still rest. 
A withdrawal of this recognition was the only thing that would put an end 
to the delusion. On the other hand, the continuance of it but served to 
countenance and to stimulate the efforts pertinaciously made by people in 
Great Britain to sustain them. This led me naturally to enlarge upon the 
effect produced upon the people of the United States as well as the govern- 
ment by the frequent accounts of the manner in which vessels of all kinds 
were fitted out from the ports of Great Britain to assist the insurgents. 
Most of the consuls weekly sent home a repetition of the same story. I had 
even been told by one of them lately that he believed as many as fifteen 
vessels were now preparing to make the voyage. Such things could not 
go on without giving rise to unpleasant implications, which, however un- 
founded, would be likely to be so far credited as to render them as dangerous 
as if they were facts. I remarked that his lordship must be aware that the 
answer that nothing could be done was very unsatisfactory ; because it 
might be fairly presumed that every nation that possessed the will naturally 
carried within itself the power to prevent abuses of its authority. 

His lordship replied, in substance, by expressing his belief that the par- 
ties engaged in these undertakings were not so much interested in the cause 
of the insurgents as in the profits to be expected by running the blockade. 
Such attempts always would be made in similar cases. For the rest these 
adventurers were compelled to take their own risk. They had the dangers 
of capture to encounter, and the certainty of being deprived of their rights 
of reclamation. The government had no disposition to give them protection. 



73 

I observed that this reasoning- seemed hardly satisfactory or consoling to 
persons exposed by the effects of such acts to a long and painful and costly 
extension of their labors of repression. I then put it to bis lordship dis- 
tinctly, if Great Britain would be contented, should the people of Canada 
break out into open rebellion, to find the United States promptly declare a 
neutrality, recognize the rebels as a belligerent power, and then from myriads 
of posts along the extensive line of boundary and the many harbors on the 
seaboard tolerate the equipment and despatch of numerous vessels freighted 
with all the materials necessary to protract the struggle ? I very much 
doubted whether his lordship would be perfectly quiescent under the answer 
that no violation of neutrality had been committed, and that no power ex- 
isted to put a stop to the proceedings. His lordship met this by saying 
that he should certainly object to any such direct expeditions ; but there was 
no evidence in any of the cases I had brought up of destination or of wrong 
intention. In that of the Oreto, upon which I had addressed a note to him, 
he had directed an investigation to be made, and the authorities at Liverpool 
had reported that there was no ground for doubting the legality of her 
voyage. 

I replied that this was exactly what gave such unpleasant impressions to 
us in America. The Oreto, by the very paper furnished from the custom- 
house, was shown to be laden with a hundred and seventy tons of arms, and 
to have persons called troops on board, destined for Palermo and Jamaica. 
The very statement of the case was enough to show what was really intended. 
The fact of her true destination was notorious all over Liverpool. No com- 
mercial people were blind to it. And the course taken by her Majesty's 
officers in declaring ignorance only led to an inference most unfavorable to 
all idea of their neutrality in the struggle. It was just such action as this 
that was making the difficulties of our government in the way of giving the 
facilities to the supply of cotton, which they hoped to furnish in a short time 
if the whole control of means to put an end to the contest was left to them. 

His lordship concluded by a polite expression of regret at these circum- 
stances, at the same time that he could not see how the government could 
change its position. 

I concluded the conversation by saying that I had only done my duty. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 232.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 16, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch No. 13?, the receipt of which has already been 
acknowledged, is accompanied by a note which was addressed to you by 
Earl Russell, in reply to your representations concerning the treatment of 
the United States ship-of-war the Flambeau at Nassau. The approval of 
the British government of the proceedings of the governor in that place is 
regarded by the President as unfriendly towards a power that extends un- 
restricted hospitalities to the naval as well as the mercantile marine of 
Great Britain in its ports and harbors. The grievance is not sensibly alle- 
viated by the fact that the government of her Majesty are able to reconcile 
it with a proclamation issued by her Majesty in May last, conceding the 



74 

rights of a public belligerent to the insurgents in arms against the United 
States. The explanation obliges us to renew the declaration this govern- 
ment has so often made, that it regards the proclamation itself as unneces- 
sary, unfriendly, and injurious. 

The history of the past year is a record of serious embarrassments of 
legitimate commerce between the two countries, resulting from the conces- 
sion of belligerent naval rights to a seditious party in the United States 
which has never had control of a single port or harbor in its own country. 
It cannot be the desire of the British government either to reduce the com- 
merce heretofore carried on between the two countries so profitably to both 
of them, or to suffer occasional irritations to ripen into fruits of animosity 
between them. You will therefore present the inconveniences complained 
of to the notice of her Majesty's government as an argument for the revision 
of that proclamation whenever, in the exercise of your discretion, you shall 
think such a revision can be pressed for with hope of a candid hearing. 
The review of our military position, which I submit in a collateral despatch, 
induces us to hope that such a time is near at hand. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWAED 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq , fyo., fyc, SfG. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 235.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 19, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of April 3 (No. 140) has been submitted to the Presi- 
dent, together with the note addressed to you by Earl Eussell bearing on 
the subject discussed. All the grievances which disturb our people and 
tend to alienate them from Great Britain seem deducible from the concessions 
made by her to the insurgents at the beginning of this civil war. All the 
explanations we receive from Great Britain seem to imply a conviction that 
this civil war must end in the overthrow of the federal Union. The ultimate 
consequence of such a calamity would be that this great country would be 
divided into factions and hostile states and confederations, as Greece and 
Italy and Spanish America have been. 

You can do no more in the present conjuncture than to give his lordship, 
from time to time, fresh and accumulating evidence of our purpose and our 
ability to pursue to a successful end the course which we have learned from 
our British ancestry, namely, to hold the constituent States of our great 
realm in perpetual and indissoluble union. You will, as I have before 
advised, do this in such way and at such times and seasons as your own 
discretion may approve. 

If the British government shall do us full justice, they will be satisfied 
that the change of attitude we ask is suggested by us upon a profound con- 
viction that it would be equally beneficial to Great Britain and to the United 
States. The President cannot consent to be responsible, now or hereafter, 
for any degree of alienation between the two countries which is now arising, 
or which shall reveal itself hereafter. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



75 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 146.] Legation of the United States, 

London, April 24, 1862. 

Sir: Since tbe date of my last, despatches from the department, numbered 
from 218 to 226, both inclusive, have been received. I do not perceive that 
they call for particular comment, as in some cases the directions given have 
been anticipated, and in others the topics bave already been in a measure 
exhausted. 

The most important event that has happened here, as connected with this 
legation, has been the notice received from Mr. Dudley, the consul at Liver- 
pool, of the arrival of the ship Emily St. Pierre, on Monday, the 21st instant, 
at that port, instead of Philadelphia, to which she had been ordered by 
Captain Goldsborough for attempting to break the blockade, and the 
application made by the crew to him for aid, they having been mastered by 
the captain and two hands left on board whilst on the voyage. Mr. Dudley 
sent at once to this legation for instructions how to act. I directed him to 
take the depositions of the men, and send them to me, together with all the 
papers in their hands connected with the case. These did not fully reach 
me until this morning. After a full consideration of the substance of them, 
I considered the matter so clear as to justify me in proceeding at once to 
present a claim on her Majesty's government for the restoration of the ehip. 
I have therefore addressed a note this morning to Lord Russell, recapitu- 
lating the facts of the case, and assuming the law without the necessity of 
argument. I have the honor to transmit a copy herewith. 

The probability is, that this ship has been placed under a British register 
by the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, for the purpose of cov- 
ering the property which they hold in common with persons in South Caro- 
lina. Some time in the month of July last I received from Mr. Wilding 
information of the transfer under British protection of a number of vessels, 
of which this was one. They have been since employed, more or less 
actively, in carrying supplies to the rebels by evasions of the blockade. I 
have so little confidence in the efficacy of any reclamation that I may make, 
that I will not predict what the issue in this case will be. But it seems to 
me to form an important part of the record which will remain to show the 
disposition of this country towards the United States during their day of 
trial. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, April 24, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to submit to your consideration copies of cer- 
tain depositions and other papers which have been transmitted to me by 
Thomas H. Dudley, esq., the consul of the United States at Liverpool, touch- 
ing the case of the Emily St. Pierre, a vessel which arrived on the 21st in- 
stant at that port. 

It would appear from these papers that the Emily St. Pierre, a ship sail- 



76 

ing under a British register, and belonging' to British subjects residing in 
Liverpool, was found, on the 18th of March last, by the officer commanding 
the naval force of the United States, attempting to run into the port of 
Charleston, in South Carolina, in violation of the blockade there legitimately 
established. In consequence of this, the ship was seized, the crew, with the 
exception of the commander, the steward, and cook, taken out, and a prize 
crew, consisting of three officers and twelve men, put on board, with direc- 
tions to proceed to Philadelphia, in order that the necessary measures might 
be at once adopted to submit the question of the validity of the capture to 
the regularly constituted tribunal for final adjudication. The original papers 
establishing these facts are now in my hands, prior to their transmission of 
them to the government of the United States. 

It further appears that the captain of the Emily St. Pierre, being, accord- 
ing to the established rule in the case of neutral vessels so seized, left at 
large and under no constraint, assumed the responsibility of preventing the 
regular process of adjudication, and of taking the law into his own hands, 
by contriving a method of surprise and rescue by force of the ship so situ- 
ated out of the hands of the possessor. Having succeeded in this attempt, 
he has compelled the United States seamen, by threatening their lives, to 
navigate the ship to the port of Liverpool, where he threw them upon the 
mercy of the world, whilst he seeks to shelter himself under the protection of 
her Majesty's authority against the consequences of this outrageous pro- 
ceeding. 

Should the facts prove to be as herein stated, I believe I may say with 
confidence that the law bearing upon the case is quite well established. 
Such an act committed by the master of a neutral vessel has long since 
been decided not simply to be wrongful, but even to work a total confisca- 
tion of vessel and cargo intrusted to his care. The opposition thus shown 
to lawful inquiry too strongly indicates the unlawful intent of the voyage 
to justify the extension to it of any protection by the government of a 
friendly power. Not doubting the sincere disposition of her Majesty's gov- 
ernment to adhere to the principles which it declared at the outset of the 
differences in the United States, I pray your lordship's early consideration 
of the subject, to the end that suitable directions may be given to restore 
the vessel at an early day to the authority from which it has been so vio- 
lently taken. 

Renewing to your lordship the assurance of my highest consideration, I 
have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 148.] Legation of the United States, 

London, April 25, 1862. 

Sir: In consequence of the necessity of another removal of the legation, 
which has been attended with the usual amount of confusion, I am not in a 
situation to write this week so fully as I could wish. I can only call your 
attention to the speech of Mr. Gladstone, at Manchester, which is reported 
in the Times of this morning. I am sorry to say that it is not in quite so 
friendly a tone as his former one on the same subject. Indeed, it seems to 
me that public opinion shows signs of fluctuation, just in proportion to the 
character of the news from America. The paragraph in the President's 



77 
» 

proclamation which relates to the removal of the dangers from foreign in- 
tervention is not well received, perhaps, because it touches the sore too 
abruptly. As the period approaches when the end of the existing stock of 
cotton grows more and more visible, the distress of the operatives appeaip 
more aggravated, and the speculations as to the future are more freely in- 
dulged in. The movements of the Emperor are watched with more interest, 
and hopes are undoubtedly cherished, in secret, that he will have the courage 
to do what many here wish, but are ashamed to declare to the world. 

In the meantime outfits of vessels with supplies to run the blockade go 
on with increased vigor. Every account received of a successful voyage 
stimulates to enlarged contributions. It is very much to be regretted that 
our seamen have not shown themselves so well skilled in the duty of patient 
vigilance on the sea-coast, as in more daring and positive enterprises on our 
internal waters. The successes of the latter, however brilliant and prized at 
home, do not have an effect in this country sufficient to compensate for the 
former deficiencies. Unfortunately, there are many men in Great Britain 
ready to re-echo the saying of the Dutch merchants caught in supplying the 
enemy with powder in the war of independence in Holland, that "they 
would, if money were to be made by it, send supplies even to hell, at the 
risk of burning their sails." 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 238.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 26, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of April 11, 1862, has been received. It is certainly 
to be regretted that the British government does not see fit to arrest, in 
some way, the proceedings of the parties engaged in supplying the insur- 
rectionists in our country with materiel of war. How singularly this course 
contrasts with the generous enthusiasm of those states which send us 
soldiers by hundreds of thousands to uphold the American Union. 

I have little to add to my recent communications concerning the military 
movements of the hour. Our generals are crowding the insurgents before 
them in northern and western Virginia. We hear, at last, of course through 
insurgent organs, of the beginning of the bombardment of the forts on the 
Mississippi, below New Orleans, by Captain Porter. We constantly expect 
the surrender of Fort Macon. But the exciting care of the hour is divided 
between Yorktown and Corinth. Battles there are imminent. The gain of 
either of these fields would have a decisive effect. The loss of both seems 
hardly possible, although 'calculations upon particular results in war are 
always uncertain. 

The President approves of your visit at Paris, and of the policy you have 
concluded to adopt as a result of your conference with Mr. Dayton. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, dec. 



78 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

Jfo. 240.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 28, 1862. 

Sir : To-day the country is assuming that the fate of this unnatural war 
is determined by the great event of the capture of New Orleans, which was 
effected by a naval expedition on the 24th instant. I trust that the antici- 
pation will be sustained. 

Captain Bullock, of Georgia, is understood to have written that he has 
five steamers built, or bought, armed, and supplied with materiel of war in 
England, which are now about leaving or are on their way to aid the in- 
surgents. 

We are prepared to meet them. But the reflection occurs, are the mari- 
time powers of Europe willing that the suppression of this insurrection 
shall be forever associated in the memory of mankind with the conviction 
that the sympathies of Europe were lent to the abortive revolution ? 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., fye., fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 244.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 1, 1862. 

Sir : Mr. Dudley, our vigilant consul at Liverpool, writes that the sub- 
scription which was gotten up in that place to aid the insurrection in this 
country mounted up to £40,000 sterling, and that all that large sum of 
money has been invested in arms and munitions of war. He states also 
that a second subscription for the same purpose is now being filled up at 
the same place. 

I can hardly doubt that he has brought these facts to your notice, and 
that you have called the attention of her Majesty's government to them. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 150.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 2, 1862. 

Sir: Yesterday the great international exhibition was opened with a 
formal ceremony by the commissioners to whom the Queen had delegated 
the power. It was, in every respect, successful, though the absence of the 
sovereign and the loss of the guiding spirit of the movement could not fail 
to have its influence in checking the enthusiasm of the occasion. In the 
meantime, however, no business has been done, and the public attention 
has been so much concentrated upon the immediate object as to leave little 
disposition to dwell upon others more remote. 



79 

At the same time it is impossible not to perceive a slight revival of the 
hopes of the enemies of our government, and a decided increase of the 
pressure for some kind of intervention in the struggle. The intelligence of 
the expedition of Mr. Mercier to Richmond has been received with more or 
less favor, as well as the confederate version of the conflict at Pittsburg 
Landing, and the supposed obstacles to our advance at Yorktown. I men- 
tion all these things only as symptoms of a disposition, in some influential 
quarters, which nothing but the steady current of our success for a period, 
nearly, of three months last past has been able to keep in check. There is 
no reason to doubt that the distress in the manufacturing districts is becom- 
ing more and more serious as the season advances. Movements are already on 
foot for procuring the aid of Parliament, which may have the effect of reopen- 
ing the discussion of the American question. At the same time there is no in- 
dication of any power to raise up party divisions. Lord Palmerston and 
Mr. Gladstone appear to carry through all their measures of supply so 
rapidly that there is every prospect of an early prorogation of Parliament, 
from the exhaustion of materials with which to keep it together. I am not 
without strong hopes that it may take place in season to avoid further 
causes of irritation between us. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS 
Hon. William H. Sewaed, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seivard. 



No. 151.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 2, 1862. 

Sir: Some days ago I received from Lord Russell the note, a copy of which 
I now transmit, making a representation to me concerning the capture of 
the steamer Labuan. As the case had been alreadj' placed before you by 
Lord Lyons, and as whatever evidence there was in relation to it must have 
been known by his lordship to be on the other side of the water, 1 confess 
this proceeding caused in me some little surprise. But as information had 
been long since furnished to me that this was one of the vessels sent from 
here by the friends of the insurgents with supplies, I postponed my answer 
for a few days, in the hope of being able to obtain more specific details as 
to her operations. In this hope, therefore, I have been disappointed for 
reasons which I fully understand; of the truth of the averment, however, I 
have no reason to doubt. Under these circumstances I have at last con- 
cluded to draw up a reply to his lordship's note, embodying some general 
views drawn from the substance of my last conversation with him, which I 
deem this a good opportunity to put in writing. A copy of my note will 
accompany this despatch. 

Nothing has been received touching my claim for the restoration of the 
Emily St. Pierre, excepting an acknowledgment of its reception and a prom- 
ise to give it consideration. I transmit a copy of his lordship's note on that 
subject. In the meantime the prize crew still remains at Liverpool under 
my directions awaiting a decision of the question. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



80 



Earl Russell to 31r. Adams. 

Foreign Office, April 19, 1862. 

Sir: You are doubtless aware of the circumstances under which the British 
steamer Labuan was lately seized at Matamoras, Mexico, by the United 
States frigate Portsmouth and conveyed to New York as a prize. 

That case has appeared to her Majesty's government to present a very 
serious aspect, not only as regards the interests of the British owners of 
the Labuan and of a portion of her cargo, but as regards the principle 
involved in her seizure, and in the conduct and declarations of the captain 
of the Portsmouth. I have not failed to instruct her Majesty's minister 
at Washington to make a fitting representation of the case to the United 
States government, and I learn from Lord Lyons that Mr. Seward has caused 
directions to be given that seizures under circumstances similar to those- 
under which the Labuan was captured shall not be repeated. Mr. Sew- 
ard, however, though not satisfied that the capture was a legal one, con- 
siders it preferable that nothing further should be done in the matter until 
the result of the judicial proceedings shall be arrived at; in other words, 
Mr. Seward, though he does not conceal his opinion that the capture of the 
Labuan was unjustifiable, and notwithstanding that the whole case has 
been confidentially put before him by Lord Lyons, declines to order her 
release, but insists upon the case being left to the distant and uncertain 
result of proceedings before a prize court. 

It cannot be contended that this course, even if it should result in the 
award of heavy damages, can be otherwise than extremely hurtful and preju- 
dicial to the parties interested, but the possible amount of damages cannot 
affect the international question of the validity of the capture; and unless the 
government of the United States is prepared to maintain, as their consul be- 
fore the prize court must endeavor to do, that the capture was justifiable, 
that government has not internationally any sufficient justification for re- 
taining wrongful possession of the ship and cargo, and sending them for 
adjudication before the prize court, after and notwithstanding the formal 
intervention of her Majesty's government. 

The course taken by the United States government in the case of the 
Labuan is all the more to be regretted, since it appears from papers 
which have been communicated to Congress that in the case of two neutral 
vessels, the one a Spanish, the other a Danish ship, which had been unjusti- 
fiably captured, the United States government has not only released such 
vessels without sending them before a prize court, but has also consented 
to pay compensation to those interested therein. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

KUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, April 30, 1862. 

My Lord: I have to ask pardon for delaying an acknowledgment of your 
note of the 19th instant, touching the case of the steamer Labuan lately 
seized by the United States frigate Portsmouth and conveyed to New York 
as a prize , 



81 

Not having received from the government of the United States any in- 
structions on the subject, and knowing nothing from official sources of the 
precise facts attending the seizure of that vessel, I am in no situation to 
express more than my own opinion upon it. I shall do myself the honor to 
transmit your lordship's note to the Department of State, where I am led to 
understand that the matter has already been brought to its attention by 
Lord Lyons. I do not entertain a doubt of the disposition of the President 
carefully to respect the just rights of every nation in amity with the United 
States, and to make the amplest reparation for any casual injury committed 
in the course of the present difficulties the moment that the justice of the 
claim shall have been established. 

At the same time I deem it my duty to represent to your lordship the fact 
that the government of the United States finds itself involved in pecu- 
liar embarrassment in regard to its policy towards the vessels of Great 
Britain from the difficulty, to which I have repeatedly called your lordship's 
attention, of distinguishing between the lawful and the unlawful trade car- 
ried on upon the coast of the United States in vessels bearing her Majesty's 
flag. It comes presented to me in so many forms of evidence that I cannot 
avoid the painful conviction that a systematic plan, founded on the intent to 
annul her Majesty's proclamation by steady efforts to violate the blockade 
through vessels either actually British, or else sailing under British colors, 
has been in operation in this island for many months, and becomes more 
rather than less extensive with the progress of time. If, therefore, it hap- 
pens that a Spanish or a Danish ship when seized is more readily released 
than a British ship, the reason must be found, not in any disposition to be more 
partial to those nations, so much as in the fact that they have been incom- 
parably less involved in the suspicion of attempting illegitimate methods of 
trade. The channels through which these enterprises serve so unfortunately 
to procrastinate the war, by encouragiDg the hopes of the insurgents, are 
too well known to admit of dispute. It is equally certain that her Majesty's 
government, in reply to the representations and remonstrances heretofore 
made by me, under instructions from my government, have candidly admit- 
ted their inability to put any stop to them whatever. Hence, it must natu- 
rally occur to your lordship's mind that, if in some cases the government, 
driven to the necessity of applying more stringent measures of prevention 
than it desires to this illicit commerce, should happen occasionally to involve 
an innocent party in the suspicion attached to so many guilty ones, it must 
seek its justification in the painful necessity consequent upon the inefficiency 
of the British law to give it that protection which, as a friendly nation, it 
would seem entitled to enjoy. 

It may, then, be reasonably presumed, at first blush, that the mere fact of 
sending the steamer Labuan to be adjudicated upon by a prize court, will 
find its justification in the fact that that vessel had become involved in a 
suspicion not unfairly attaching itself to all vessels sailing under British 
colors in the neighborhood of the place where she was taken. But I regret 
to be compelled further to apprise your lordship that, in this particular in- 
stance, the intentions of the steamer Labuan, from the period of her first 
departure from Great Britain, have been understood to be such as justly to 
excite the strongest suspicion, and, taken in connexion with her appear- 
ance in the spot where she was seized, to constitute a fair question, at least, 
for the determination of a prize court. Disclaiming the right to enter into 
the merits of the case on this side of the Atlantic, where I am not in pos- 
session of the evidence, either of her innocence or her guilt, and disavowing 
all acquaintance with the views taken of the matter by the President, I 
have felt myself constrained, by the honor your lordship has done me in call- 



82 

ing my attention to the subject, respectfully to submit my own views for your 
consideration. 

Renewing to your lordship the assurances of my highest consideration, I 
have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c, &c. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, April 24, 186-2, 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the reeeipt of your letter of this 
day's date, applying for the restoration of the Emily St. Pierre, a vessel 
captured by one of the cruisers of the United States, on the charge of 
attempting to break the blockade, but which was subsequently retaken by 
the master and brought to Liverpool; and I have to state to you, in reply, 
that your representation shall be duly considered. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sc, &c, do. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, 



No. 245\] Department of State, 

Washington, May 5, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of April 16 (No. 144) has arrived this morning, and 
the mail for Europe closes this evening. 

I advised you by telegram, sent out by the last steamer, of the capture 
of New Orleans. I have now to inform you that Fort Macon has surren- 
dered to our siege, and that Yorktown has just been relinquished to our 
army on the eve of an anticipated bombardment. General McClellan is 
marching up the Peninsula towards Richmond, and General McDowell is 
opening his way downward towards the same capital from Fredericksburg. 

If our information is correct, the insurgent army is evacuating Corinth. 
The spurious congress of the insurgents has suddenly adjourned. Their 
fiscal system must by this time have exploded, and their military connexions 
are everywhere broken. It is a very pleasant addition to this news that 
two of the British steamers lately fitted out at Liverpool with ammunition 
and arms for the insurgents have been captured by our blockading fleet. 
Thus the tide of success seems to be flowing full and strong. Acting upon 
the confidence which it has produced, we have opened New Orleans to cor- 
respondence, and we are taking measures for an early opening of that and 
some other ports to trade under necessary limitations. 

These concessions occur simultaneously with our ratification of a treaty 
with Great Britain designed to effect the suppression of the African slave 
trade. 

Never were the influences of time and distance upon political opinions 
and proceedings illustrated more strongly than in the contrast which these 
transactions present to the course pursued and the sentiments avowed by 
tho British government as reported to us in your despatch. 



83 

The British government at London, on the 16th of April, reasoned and 
acted from the case as it stood here on the first of April. We are review- 
ing* the proceeding's and language of the British government in view of the 
case as it stands now on the 5th of May. We are sure, however, that 
Great Britain will not insist that the insurgents shall be regarded as a 
public belligerent after they shall have ceased to be able to maintain an 
organized war. 

The President desires that, if it shall seem to you discreet, you recall the 
subject to Earl Russell's attention, after the events which have recently 
occurred here shall have transpired in Europe. It will be a sufficient justi- 
fication for the seeming impatience that the interests of both nations, and 
even the interests of humanity, require that a war which so severely, and 
yet so unnecessarily and so hopelessly, scourges society, should not be 
protracted through any seeming indifference to the evil on the part of the 
maritime powers. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, fyc., Sfc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 156.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 8, 1862. 

Sir: I have received from the department despatches numbered from 228 
to 236, both inclusive, and a circular dated the 11th of March rescinding 
the new rules of last year respecting passports. 

I feel under great obligation to you for the information furnished to me 
of the present condition of the war in your despatch JSo. 228, and for the 
map which accompanied it. I propose to read the substance of it to Lord 
Russell, for his information, should I find an opportunity at a conference 
which he has appointed for 3 o'clock to-morrow to open a different question — 
that of the Stadt dues. 

I transmit a copy of a note received from his lordship, of the 6th instant, 
in reply to mine, on the case of the steamer Labuan. If I was at a loss 
to comprehend the reason of the representation volunteered to me on that 
subject, I am still more so to divine the cause for the turn now given to the 
correspondence. 

I have felt it my duty to point out the nature of the position which he 
has taken in as subdued a tone as I can command. Feeling that I am 
engaged in the responsible duty of making up a solemn issue between the 
two countries in one of the most momentous struggles of modern times, I 
am anxious to choose the ground with great care, so that I may hold it with 
firmness throughout the possible embarrassments that may supervene. A 
copy of my reply to his lordship accompanies this despatch. 

I am obliged to confess that I watch the course of events in this country 
with growing distrust. The rapid increase of the distress in Lancashire is 
developing a state of feeling towards the United States which seeks but an 
opportunity to find public expression. Representations are making to the 
commissioners of the poor law board, soliciting the interposition of govern- 
ment to grant relief, which place the ministry in an extremely difficult situ- 
ation. Not possessed of strength in the House of Commons to carry through 
measures of their own, they feel themselves in danger of an overthrow in 



84 

any alternative, whether they do or do not come forward. Should it so 
happen that their weakness threatens to draw down upon itself a large 
share of popular indignation, it would not at all surprise me if I were to 
witness a very sudden change of tone, and an eagerness to precipitate an 
issue with the United States on the blockade. It is in this light that I read 
these two late notes of Lord Russell. 

I continue strong in the belief that the progress of the campaign will 
show more and more clearly the folly of attempting interference. At 
present the momentary slackening in our progress has revived the hopes of 
the friends of the insurgents, and they are straining every nerve to furnish 
aid against the impending crisis. I enter into no details, being well aware 
that they are supplied in abundance from other sources. Of course, we 
watch the arrival of every steamer with the greatest interest. The course 
of M. Mercier is observed here with much attention, and awakens many 
hopes. I infer that he could not have taken it without communication with 
you, as such a step without it could hardly be justified by any precedent of 
diplomatic proprieties that is to be found recorded in the books. There is a 
project afloat of a joint representation of the powers of Europe, which may 
assume some kind of shape should the struggle be prolonged. 

I confess it is a trial of patience to witness the extraordinary manner in 
which the nations of this hemisphere undertake to constitute themselves 
the judges of our affairs. One would imagine that their experience of the 
effects of the same tendency in regard to France in 1192 would have cured 
them of all such fancies ever after. Firmly believing that these events are 
ordered to the ultimate development of great moral results, I am content to 
master the present anxieties and calmly to await the issue. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward. 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Lord John Russell to Mr. Adams. 

Foreign Office, May 6, 1862. 

Sir : I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 30th ultimo. 

I am quite willing to leave the case of the Labuan to the zealous 
exertions of Lord Lyons. It is a plain case of justice, and the representa- 
tions of her Majesty's government with regard to it ought to be successful. 

With regard to the " systematic plan" which you say has been pursued 
by her Majesty's subjects " to violate the blockade by steady efforts," there 
are some reflections which I am surprised have not occurred to you. 

The United States government, on the allegation of a rebellion pervading 
from nine to .eleven States of the Union, have now for more than twelve 
months endeavored to (maintain a blockade of three thousand miles of coast. 
This blockade, kept up irregularly, but when enforced, enforced severely, 
has seriously injured the trade and manufactures of the United Kingdom. 
Thousands of persons are now obliged to resort to the poor rate for sub- 
sistence, owing to this blockade. Yet her Majesty's government have never 
sought to take advantage of the obvious imperfections of this blockade, in 
order to declare it ineffective. They have, to the loss and detriment of the 
British nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain towards a 
friendly state. But when her Majesty's government are asked to go 



85 

beyond this, and to overstep the existing powers given them by municipal 
and international law for the purpose of imposing arbitrary restrictions on 
the trade of her Majesty's subjects, it is impossible to listen to such sug- 
gestions. The ingenuity of persons engaged in commerce will always, in 
some degree, defeat attempts to starve or debar from commercial inter- 
course an extensive coast inhabited by a large and industrious population. 

If, therefore, the government of the United States consider it for their 
interest to inflict this great injury on other nations, the utmost they can 
expect is that European powers shall respect those acts of the United 
States which are within the limits of the law. The United States govern- 
ment cannot expect that Great Britain should frame new statutes to aid the 
federal blockade, and to carry into effect the restrictions on commerce 
which the United States, for their own purposes, have thought fit to insti- 
tute, and the application of which it is their duty to confine within the 
legitimate limits of international law. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

EUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Lord John Russell. 

Legation of the United States, 

London, May 8, 1362. 

My Lord : I have to acknowledge the reception of your note of the 6th 
instant, in which you do me the honor to suggest some thoughts on the 
injurious effect of the American blockade. 

In declaring that blockade the government of the United States are be- 
lieved to have done nothing which has not been repeatedly done heretofore, 
and the right to do which at any time hereafter, whenever the necessity 
shall appear to call for it, is not distinctly affirmed by the government of 
Great Britain. Neither does the fact that this proceeding pressed with the 
greatest severity upon the interests of neutral nations appear formerly to 
have been regarded in any other light than as an incidental damage, which, 
however much regretted in itself, unavoidably follows from the gravity of 
the emergency which created it. For it can scarcely be supposed that so 
onerous a task as a veritable blockade will be undertaken by any nation for 
causes not deemed of paramount necessity, or will be persevered in one 
moment longer than those causes continue to operate. I am very sure that 
it is the desire of the government of the United States to accelerate the 
period when the blockade now in operation may be safely raised. To that 
end it is bending all its efforts. And in this it claims to be mindful not 
simply of the interests of its own citizens, but likewise of those of all 
friendly nations. Hence it is that it views with deep regret the strenuous 
efforts of evil-disposed persons in foreign countries, by undertakings carried 
on in defiance of all recognized law, to impair, so far as they can, the 
efficacy of its measures, and in a corresponding degree to protract the 
severity of the struggle. Hence it is, likewise, that it has been profoundly 
concerned at the inefficacy of the laws of Great Britain, in which a large 
proportion of the undertakings originate, to apply any adequate policy of 
prevention. For 1 doubt not your lordship will see at a glance the embar- 
rassment in which a country is necessarily involved by complaints raised 
of the continued severity of a blockade by a friendly nation which, at the 



86 

same time, confesses its inability to restrain its subjects from stimulating 
the resistance that necessitates a continuance of the very state of things of 
which they make complaint. 

That a sense of the difficulties consequent upon the action of such persons 
prompted the enactment of the statute of his Majesty George the Third of 
the 3d July, 1819, is made plain by the language of its preamble. It is 
therein stated that it was passed because the laws then in force were not 
sufficiently effectual to prevent the evil complained of. It now appears, 
from the substance of the representations which I have heretofore had the 
honor to make to your lordship, that the provisions of that law are as little 
effectual in curing the evil as those of any of its predecessors. But I am 
pained to be obliged to gather from the concluding words of your lordship's 
note that the expression of an opinion that the United States, in the execu- 
tion of a measure conceded to be correct, as well as justified by every pre- 
cedent of international law as construed by the highest British authorities, 
cannot expect that Great Britain should frame new statutes to remedy the 
deficiency of its own laws to prevent what it acknowledges on the face of 
that statute to be evils created by its own refractory subjects. I must be 
permitted to say, in reply, that, in my belief, the government of the United 
States would scarcely be disposed to make a similar reply to her Majesty's 
government were the relative position of the two countries to be reversed. 

Permit me, in conclusion, to assure your lordship that the grounds upon 
which the representations I have had the honor to make [were founded] 
have not been hastily considered. So far from it, the extent of the evil com- 
plained of has been under rather than overstated. I have now before me a 
list of eleven steamers and ten sailing vessels that have been equipped and 
despatched within thirty days, or are now preparing, freighted with sup- 
plies of all kinds for the insurgents from one port of Great Britain alone. 
These supplies, I have reason to believe, are to be conveyed to Nassau, 
which place is used as an entrepot for the convenience of vessels under 
British colors employed for the sole purpose of breaking the blockade. I 
have reasons for supposing that the business is reduced to a system, ema- 
nating from a central authority situated at London ; and, further, that 
large sums of money have been contributed by British subjects to aid in 
carrying it on. If the United States have in any of their relations with her 
Majesty's government committed some act not within the legitimate limits 
of international law which justifies the declaration of a disposition not to 
provide against such obvious violations of the neutrality proclaimed at the 
outset of this deplorable struggle, I trust I may be so clearly presented to 
their consideration by your lordship as to supply the means either of ex- 
planation or of remedy. 

Renewing to your lordship the assurances of my highest consideration, I 
have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Lord John Russell, Sfc, fye. } fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 158.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 9, 1862. 

Sir : I transmit herewith the copy of Lord Russell's reply to my applica 
tion for the restoration of the Emily St. Pierre, received last evening. It 
does not vary much from what I expected. I propose to draw up a brief 
answer to close the correspondence. 



87 

I have this moment returned from my conference with his lordship. I 
read to him the greater part of your despatch No. 228. The conversation 
that followed was interesting, though brief. It was shortened "by the cir- 
cumstance that the hour previously fixed for the reception of the Japanese 
commissioners had arrived. As there is not time to prepare a report by this 
steamer, I shall be compelled to defer it until next week. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Earl Bussell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, May 1, 1862. 

Sir : In your letter of the 24th of April j^ou call my attention to the case 
of' the British vessel Emily St. Pierre, which, having been captured by a 
cruiser of the United States for an attempt to break the blockade of Charles- 
ton, was, on her voyage to Philadelphia for the purpose of being proceeded 
against in the admiralty court, retaken from the prize crew by the master, 
and some of her own crew left on board her, and brought into Liverpool; 
and you request that suitable directions may be given to restore the vessel 
at an early day to the authority from which she has been violently taken. 

I have consulted the law advisers of the crown on this matter; and, 
in conformity with their opinion, I have now the honor to state to you 
that her Majesty's government are unable to comply with your request for 
the restoration of the Emily St. Pierre, inasmuch as they have no juris- 
diction or legal power whatever to take or to acquire possession of her, 
or to interfere with her owners in relation to their property in her. 

Acts of forcible resistance to the rights of belligerents, when lawfully ex- 
ercised over neutral merchant ships on the high seas, such, for instance, as 
rescue from capture, however cognizable or punishable as offences against 
international law, in the prize courts of the captor administering such law, 
are not cognizable by the municipal law of England, and cannot by that 
law be punished either by confiscation of the ship, or by any other penalty; 
and her Majesty's government cannot raise, in an English court, the question 
of the validity of the capture of the Emily St. Pierre, or of the subsequent 
rescue and recapture of that vessel, for such recapture is not an offence 
against the municipal law of this country. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyo., SfC, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 248.] Department of State, 

Washington, Hay 9, 1862. 
Sir : Your despatch of the 24th of April, No. 146, has been received. 
Your proceeding in asking from the British government the restoration of 
the prize ship Emily St. Pierre is approved, equally for its promptness 



and the grounds upon which it was adopted. The President does not allow 
himself to^ donbt that the claim will receive early and just consideration. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fye., fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 249.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 12, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of the 25th of April (No. 148) has been received. 

The progress of the national arms continues so auspiciously as to excite the 
insurgents to desperation and to require of their abettors in Europe extreme 
activity and diligence to rescue a cause which, without foreign interven- 
tion, seems already lost. You may now assume that the Mississippi in its 
whole length is restored to the federal authority. Richmond is practically held 
in close siege by General McClellan. Norfolk, with all the coasts and tribu- 
taries of Hampton roads, is cleared of insurrectionary land forces and naval 
forces. Our navy, already large and effective and daily increasing, is now 
released from two very arduous and exhausting sieges in which it has 
been so long engaged, and it is scarcely to be doubted that, with the co- 
operation of the armies already in the field, every port and every fort on the 
sea-coast will be recovered within the time that the vessels bringing contri- 
butions and auxiliaries will require to complete their voyages from England. 

I have expected constantly, since the arrival of the last mail, to be enabled 
to send out by the steamer which will carry this despatch a proclamation 
of the President's, modifying the blockade I still hope to be able to do so. 
But the President, with the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War, 
has been absent from the capital for several days, and they have only just 
this hour returned from Hampton roads. If I fail to get the paper perfected 
to-day, I shall still hope to send intelligence of the issue of a proclamation 
by despatch over the wires to overtake the steamer at Cape Race. 

If there be, as we do not doubt there is, a sincere desire on the part of the 
maritime powers of Europe to see an end of this painful strife, hardly less 
severe in its injuries to them than to us, it is to be expected that the partial 
opening of so many of the southern ports will be sufficient to put an end to 
distrust of our complete and speedy restoration of the American Union. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, fyc, fyc;, fyc. 



Mr . Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 250] Department of State, 

Washington, May 12, 1862. 

Sir: I enclose a copy of a proclamation of the President, of this date, 
opening certain ports which have recently been blockaded. The treasury 
regulations to which it refers have not beeen received, but will immediately 
follow. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
C. F. Adams, fyc, fyc, fyc. 

[Same to Mr. Dayton.] 



89 



A PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas, by my proclamation of the nineteenth of April, one thousand 
eight hundred and sixty-one, it was declared that the ports of certain States, 
including 1 those of Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina, Port Royal, in 
the State of South Carolina, and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, 
were, for reasons therein set forth, intended to be placed under blockade; 
and whereas the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans have 
since been blockaded; but as the blockade of the same ports may now be 
safely relaxed with advantage to the interests of commerce: 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the 
United States, pursuant to the authority in me vested by the fifth section of 
the act of Congress approved on the 13th of July last, entitled "An act fur- 
ther to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes," 
do hereby declare that the blockade of the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, 
and New Orleans shall so far cease and determine, from and after the first 
day of June next, that commercial intercourse with those ports, except as to 
persons and things and information contraband of war, may, from that time, 
be carried on, subject to the laws of the United States, and to the limitations 
and in pursuance of the regulations which are prescribed by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in his order of this date, which is appended to this proc- 
lamation. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of 
the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this twelfth day of May, in the year of 
r -| our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the inde- 
k ' '-' pendence of the United States the eighty-sixth. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

By the President: 

William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 
[Extract.] 



No. 159.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 15, 1862. 

:Js ^c $z ^ * 

This matter having been disposed of, I then remarked that I was still in 
the receipt of letters from my government urging me to continue to press 
her Majesty's minister for some action on the subject which I had hereto- 
fore labored so much to present to his attention. But as I had little con- 
fidence in the success of any repetition I might make of my former arguments, 
I hoped his lordship would permit me to read to him the last despatch which 
had reached me. I had not, indeed, been directed to lay it before him, nor 
to leave a copy of it. The time and manner of using it had been left wholly 
to my discretion. But as it seemed to me to have been carefully and 
elaborately drawn as a full exposition of the views of the government at 
this crisis, I was of opinion that it was no more than just to both parties 



90 

that it should be communicated in extenso. His lordship said he should be 
glad to hear it, and then I read all of it but the single passage at the close 
of the first paragraph. 

After I had done, his lordship remarked that he had no disposition to call 
in question any of the statements made in the despatch. It might be just 
as there alleged But there still remained much to be done. New Orleans, 
Savannah, and Charleston continued in the possession of the other party, 
and the resistance of the great armies left the result yet awaiting further 
development. 

I replied to this by saying that from the outset I had entertained little 
doubt of what the end of this struggle would be, provided that we were left 
entirely to ourselves to work it out. In my mind that end was now rapidly 
approaching. I had become much more concerned in considering what the 
state of things was likely to be after it had been attained. It was with very 
great regret I was compelled to express my conviction of the rapid increase 
among the people of the United States of feelings of irritation and bitterness 
towards this country. I received the evidence of it from so many and such 
opposite sources that I could not question the fact. My own disposition 
had been and continued to be of the most friendly character. But I very 
much feared that if her Majesty's government did not hold forth some means 
which would enable its friends to maintain the existence of a reciprocal 
feeling, the seeds would be planted of a hostility that would bear bitter 
fruit for the whole of the next generation. 

His lordship replied that it was much to be regretted, but the fact was 
that this hostile feeling had always prevailed in America. Down to the 
period of the Prince of Wales's visit whatever the English had done, it 
seemed to animate all classes alike to take it amiss. Even such a person as 
Mr. Everett, from whom better things might be expected, seemed to omit no 
opportunity of finding fault with what they did, and stimulating the popular 
prejudice at their expense. It seemed a hopeless task to attempt to correct 
this tendency. 

I then begged leave to suggest to his lordship whether there was not 
another side to the picture. I thought I was in a situation to present it, for 
I had had peculiar opportunities for observing it, from the fact that members 
of my family had repeatedly been called to act on the scene. Immediately 
after the peace of 1783 my grandfather had been sent here as the first 
minister. He came with a disposition to establish the most friendly rela- 
tions. He had not been favorably impressed with the policy of the French 
government, and was anxious to equalize the balance of influence in America. 
And so well was this known that the King, George III, at his audience, 
appeared to me to have stepped to the verge of the proprieties of his position 
in making allusion to it. Then w T as the first opportunity to conciliate 
America. And Mr. Pitt seemed to have conceived the idea. Had the com- 
mercial policy he recommended been adopted, the United States would have 
been more closely bound to this country after their independence than they 
ever had been whilst colonies. In lieu of this, the principles of Lord Sheffield's 
pamphlet were accepted, and it was decided to await the possibilities of an 
unfavorable issue to our experiment of government. The natural conse- 
quence was an alienation, which ended in the war of 1812. At the close of 
that war my father was sent here to do what he could to effect a re-establish- 
ment of amicable relations. His disposition was all that could be wished. 
It was met by indifference and repulsion. From that period I had every 
reason to know the impressions that had gone far to regulate his action as 
a public man down to the close of his life towards Great Britain. And now 
I had come here with the most anxious desire to preserve relations of amity, 
which seemed latterly to have been taking a more positive character than 



91 

ever before. I had done everything" in my power during- my residence to 
that end. I was anxious, whenever I might return home, to have the means 
of making a favorable report to my countrymen. I supplicated his lordship, 
then, not to compel me to go back without the possession of the smallest 
evidence that could refute the inevitable arguments that would be drawn 
from the position that Great Britain had thus far chosen to assume during 
this struggle. * * * * 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 160.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 15, 1862. 

Sir: I have had the honor to receive from the department despatches 
numbered from 231 to 241, both inclusive; likewise a telegraphic despatch, 
dated the 1st instant, containing the welcome intelligence of the capture of 
New Orleans, which I immediately communicated by telegraph to Mr. 
Dayton. The intelligence was received here with such general incredulity 
that even my announcement of the official confirmation scarcely dispelled 
the doubts. The cause of this possibly may be that it dissipated many 
illusions indulged in of late on very small foundations. I now transmit the 
copy of my reply to Lord Russell's note, a copy of which is already on its 
way to you, with my despatch No. 158, of the 9th instant. Since that date 
I have received a note from his lordship, dated the 10th, in answer to mine 
addressed to him on the 8th, to which I felt it my duty to make a rejoinder 
on the 12th instant. Copies of these two notes likewise accompany this 
despatch. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Adams to .Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, May 10, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your lordship's 
note of the 1th instant, touching the case of the British vessel Emily St. 
Pierre. 

I do not understand from the terms of that note that her Majesty's law 
advisers entertain a doubt of the correctness of the law as explained in my 
application of the 24th of April for the restoration of that vessel. Indeed, 
it would be difficult to find any doctrine more precisely laid down by the 
highest judicial authority of Great Britain than that which applies to this 
particular case. I pray your lordship's attention to the language of the 
late Lord Stowell, famed all over the world for his exposition of international 
law. "If a neutral master attempts a rescue, he violates a duty which is 



92 

imposed upon him by the law of nations to submit to come in for inquiry as 
to the property of the ship or cargo; and if he violates that obligation by a 
recurrence to force, the consequence will undoubtedly reach the property of 
his owner; and it would, I think, extend also to the confiscation of the whole 
cargo intrusted to his care, and thus fraudulently attempted to be withdrawn 
from the rights of war." 

If this be admitted to be a correct version of the law of the case, as re- 
cognized by Great Britain, then little room appears to be left for doubt that 
the neutral master of the Emily St. Pierre has brought himself within the 
scope of the condemnation expressed in these words of Lord Stowell, for the 
facts, as substantially presented by me, do not seem to be disputed. 

But I further understand that the grounds upon which your lordship de- 
clines to interfere on behalf of the United States do not in any way touch 
the merits of the case. They are, so far as I can perceive, purely technical. 
Your lordship remarks that her Majesty's government have no jurisdiction 
or legal power whatever to take or acquire possession of the vessel, or to 
interfere with her owners, in relation to their property in her. And, further, 
that " acts of forcible resistance to the rights of belligerents, when lawfully 
exercised over neutral merchant ships on the high seas, such, for instance, 
as rescue from capture, however cognizable or punishable as offences against 
international law in the prize courts of the captor administering such law, 
are not cognizable by the municipal law of England, and cannot, by that 
law, be punished either by confiscation of the ship or by any other penalty ; 
and her Majesty's government cannot raise, in an English court, the question 
of the validity of the capture of the Emily St. Pierre, or of the subsequent 
rescue and recapture of that vessel, for such recapture is not an offence 
against the municipal law of this country." 

I cannot restrain the expression of my profound regret to your lordship 
that by reason of the absence of a just and necessary power in her Majesty's 
government this wrongdoer should thus have the opportunity of escaping 
with impunity from suffering the proper penalty for his fraudulent attempts. 
I am the more deeply sensible of my disappointment from the fact that I had 
been led to hope for an opposite result from the language of her Majesty's 
proclamation issued on the 13th day of May last, and evidently intended to 
apply to precisely the class of cases to which this of the Emily St. Pierre 
appears to belong. The closing paragraph of that paper expressly warns 
all her Majesty's subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to her protec- 
tion, that if any of them shall presume, " in contempt of that, her royal proc- 
lamation, and of her high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their 
duty, as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest, or in violation 
or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf ', as, for example, * * * 
by breaking, or endeavoring to break, any blockade lawfully and actually 
established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties, * * * 
all parties so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and 
penal consequences of the said statute, or by the law of nations in that behalf 
imposed or denounced." 

If it be not implied by the language to which I have taken the liberty to 
call your lordship's attention that there is a jurisdiction existing in Great 
Britain capable of taking cognizance of cases arising under the law of na- 
tions, and beyond the range of the municipal law, then does it appear, at 
least to my judgment, that the proclamation has been most unfortunately 
worded, for it can scarcely be denied that the government of the United 
States, which it was certainly intended in part to protect, had a just right 
to infer from it the power as well as the will of her Majesty's government to 
shelter it against such wrongful and fraudulent acts of her ill-intentioned 
subjects as have been committed in the case of the ship Emily St. Pierre. 



93 

Praying your lordship's pardon for the trouble I have given you in this 
case, and trusting I may find justification for my very natural mistake, I 
beg to renew to your lordship the assurance of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c, &c. 



Earl Bunnell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, May 10, 1862. 

Sir : In the letter I had the honor to receive from you yesterday you 
appear to have confounded two things totally distinct. 

The foreign enlistment act is intended to prevent the subjects of the 
crown from going to war when the sovereign is not at war. Thus private 
persons are prohibited from fitting out a ship-of-war in our ports, or from 
enlisting in the service of a foreign state at war with another state, or in 
the service of insurgents against a foreign sovereign or state. In these cases 
the persons so acting would carry on war, and thus might engage the name 
of their sovereign and of their nation in belligerent operations. But owners 
and masters of merchant ships carrying warlike stores do nothing of the 
kind. If captured for breaking a blockade or carrying contraband of war 
to the enemy of the captor, they submit to capture, are tried, and condemned 
to lose their cargo. This is the penalty which the law of nations has affixed 
to such an offence, and in calling upon her Majesty's government to prohibit 
such adventurers you in effect call upon her Majesty's government to do that 
which it belongs to the cruisers and the courts of the United states to do 
for themselves. 

There can -be only one plea for asking Great Britain thus to interpose. 
That plea is, that the blockade is in reality ineffective, and that merchant 
ships can enter with impunity the blockaded ports. But this is a plea which 
I presume you will not urge. Her Majesty's government have considered 
the blockade as an effective blockade, and have submitted to all its incon- 
veniences as such. 

They can only hope that, if resistance should prove to be hopeless, the 
confederate States will not continue the struggle; that if, on the other hand, 
the restoration of the Union should appear to be impossible, the work of 
devastation now going on will cease. 

Her Majesty's government can only desire the prosperity of the inhabit- 
ants of the United States, whatever may be the event of the present civil 
war. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, May 12, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your note of 
the 10th instant. From the purport of it I am led to fear that I may have 
been unfortunate heretofore in my attempts to express my own meaning. 



94 

If I have appeared to your lordship to confound two thing's so very dissim- 
ilar as the penalties of the enlistment act and the liabilities which follow 
from the attempt to break a blockade, I can only say that the fault must be 
laid to my want of ability to use words properly to express my thoughts. 

The position which I did mean to take was this: that the intent of the 
enlistment act, as explained by the words of its preamble, was to prevent 
the unauthorized action of subjects of Great Britain, disposed to embark in 
the contests of foreign nations, from involving the country in the risk of a 
war with these countries. This view of the law does not seem to be mate- 
rially varied by your lordship; when speaking of the same thing you say 
that the law applies to cases where "private persons so acting would carry 
on, and thus might engage the name of their sovereign and of their nation 
in belligerent operations/' It is farther shown by that preamble that that 
act was an additional act of prevention, made necessary by experience of 
the inefficiency of former acts passed to effect the same object. 

But it is now made plain that whatever may have been the skill with 
which this latest act was drawn, it does not completely fulfil its intent, 
because it is very certain that many British subjects are now engaged in 
undertakings of a hostile character to a foreign state which, though not 
technically within the strict letter of the enlistment act, are as much con- 
trary to its spirit as if they levied war directly. Their measures embrace 
all of the operations preliminary to openly carrying on war — the supply of 
men, and ships, and arms, and money to one party in order that they may 
be the better enabled to overcome the other, which other is in this case a 
nation with which Great Britain is now under treaty obligations of the most 
solemn nature to maintain a lasting peace and friendship. The government 
of the United States having, in the course of its hostile operations, had 
occasion to experience the injurious effects of this virtual levying of war 
against itself from the ports of a friendly power, and seeing the obstacle in 
the way of the removal of them to be alleged to be the inefficiency of a 
statute intended to effect that object, does not regard it as asking anything 
unreasonable, or more than it would in like case be willing itself to grant, 
if it solicits some action to render effective the spirit as well of the law as 
of her Majesty's enunciation of the national will. 

I perceive that your lordship appears to be of opinion that, in this pro- 
ceeding, the government of the United States is asking more than is rea- 
sonable. It is, in your view, sufficient to declare that owners and masters 
of merchant ships, fitted out with intent to break a blockade or carry con- 
traband of war to one of two parties engaged in war, are subject to capture, 
trial, and condemnation, if caught by the offended party. And hence, in 
this case, that the government of the United States, in calling upon her 
Majesty's government to prohibit such adventures, is in effect calling upon 
it to do that which it ought to do, and fails to be able to do for itself. The 
only valid plea, your lordship remarks, for asking interposition, is, that the 
blockade is in reality ineffective; and this, you very justly presume, I shall 
not be disposed to urge. 

But I pray your lordship's pardon if I submit that you appear to have en- 
tirely overlooked another plea, which I am confident enough to imagine of 
no inconsiderable weight. That plea is that the kingdom of Great Britain 
endeavor in spirit as well as in letter to preserve the principle of neutrality, 
if not of friendship, towards a foreign power in amity with it to which it 
has pledged itself. The precise mode in which that shall be done, it does 
not presume to prescribe. That the toleration of such conduct in subjects 
of Great Britain, as I have had the pain heretofore to expose, is surely in 
violation of that neutrality, is justly to be inferred from the very language 
of her Majesty's proclamation. For it is therein declared that precisely 



95 

such acts of theirs as I have been compelled to complain of are done " in 
derogation of their duty to her as a neutral sovereign, and incur her high 
displeasure." If such, then, be the true character of the proceedings to 
which I have heretofore called your lordship's attention, they surely merit 
something more of notice from her Majesty's ministers than an intimation 
that they will be suffered to pass unreproved unless the punishment shall be 
inflicted by the nation whom they are designed to injure. The object of the 
government of the United States has not been to relieve itself of the duty 
of vigilance to capture offenders against the law. It has rather been to 
avoid the necessity of applying additional stringent measures for their own 
security against British subjects found to be engaged in such illicit enter- 
prises, made imperative by the conviction that no preventive co-operation 
whatever can be expected from her Majesty's government. It has rather 
been to avoid the risk of confounding the innocent with the guilty, because 
all happen to be involved in a general suspicion. And, lastly, it has rather 
been to remove, at as earty a clay as may be, consistently with its own 
safety, the restrictions on the trade with foreign countries, which these evil- 
doers are laboring with so much industry to force it to protract. Your lord- 
ship's language leaves me little hope of any co-operation of her Majesty's 
government to these ends. Nevertheless, I trust I may be permitted to 
indulge the belief that the time is not now far distant when the difficulties 
thus interposed in the way of its progress will have been so far removed by 
its own unassisted action as to relieve both countries from the painful ne- 
cessity of further continuing the discussion. 

Renewing to your lordship the assurances of my highest consideration, I 
have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 253.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 19, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of May 2 (No. 150) has been received. The principal 
military event of the past week has been the recovery of the important port 
and town of Pensacola. 

Of our seaports there yet remain in the occupation of the insurgents only 
Wilmington, in North Carolina, Charleston, in South Carolina, Mobile, in 
Alabama, Galveston, in Texas — all of which are, nevertheless, very effectu- 
ally blockaded. 

Preparations are made for their immediate recovery. Thus we expect 
that, within the next four weeks, the authority of the Union will be entirely 
restored along the whole Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the country. Trade 
resuming its legitimate character will begin anew on the first of June at 
the several ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans, and we shall 
not be slow in extending the same benefits to other ports. The temptations 
to contraband trade are rapidly passing away, and it is to be hoped that 
that great and disturbing annoyance will speedily cease to irritate at home 
and abroad. 

The conflict henceforth will be between land forces in the interior of the 
country, and perhaps the battles impending at Richmond and Corinth may 
close the unnatural war. It would be idle to speculate of the probabilities 
of the results of those combats. They are imminent. I will say only that 



96 

our armies are as strong 1 , vigorous, and enthusiastic, as they are well ap- 
pointed. Their supplies, also, are adequate, and are not in any case likely 
to fail. Every day exhausts the insurgents, and deprives them of needful 
resources and facilities for military operations. 

I send for your information a copy of a circular which has been addressed 
by this department to the consuls of the United States upon the subject of 
licenses for trade at the several ports where the blockade is to be relaxed 
from and after the first of June next by effect of the President's proclama- 
tion. 

I observe that speculations concerning foreign intervention were again 
rising in Europe at the date of our last advices thence, and certain remarks 
made by one of the ministry at Manchester have been thought here indica- 
tive of a disposition of that kind growing up in Great Britain. It is re- 
gretted that such incidents should occur just at the moment when this country 
is so manifestly about to return to a condition of repose and peace. Neverthe- 
less they may exert a salutary influence, by inducing Congress to put the 
land and naval forces of the country upon a footing which will not permit 
it to be agitated again by intrigues to introduce foreign enemies to settle 
domestic strifes. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., 8fC., §c. 



Mr. Seiuard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 254.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 20, 1862. 

Sir : With reference to the case of the Labuan, which is the subject of 
your despatch, No. 151, of the 2d instant, I have to remark that when it was 
first presented to the department by Lord Lyons my impression was that the 
capture was illegal. My opinion, however, was that there was. probable 
cause enough for the capture to warrant a judicial investigation of the case, 
at least for the purpose of assessing the damages which might be due to the 
claimants. This opinion was soon after confirmed by a letter from the United 
States consul at Matamoras to the department, which represented that at 
the time of the capture the Matamoras custom-house was at Brownsville, 
and that the cotton which was on board the Labuan at the time of the cap- 
ture proceeded from the latter place in a steamer belonging there. 

The attorney of the United States at New York was instructed to endeavor 
to have the case disposed of as soon as might be practicable, and the de- 
partment is in daily expectation of receiving from him the result of the 
proceedings. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., dec, &c, &c. 



97 



Mr. Seward to Mr.. Adams. 

No. 255.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 22, 1862. 

Sir: Referring to your despatch No. 146, of the 24th ultimo, and to my 
reply of the 9th instant, numbered 248, in relation to the recapture of the 
prize ship Emily St. Pierre, I invite your attention to the enclosed copy of 
a communication on the subject from the Secretary of the Navy. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyo., fyc, SfC. 



Mr. Welles to Mr. Seward. 



Navy Department, May 20, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to invite your attention to the accompanying' ex- 
tract from a despatch, dated the 14th instant, received from Plag-Officer 
Samuel F. DuPont, commanding South Atlantic blockading squadron, in refer- 
ence to the recapture of the Emily St. Pierre. 

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GIDEON WELLES. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



Flag-Officer DuPont to Mr. Welles. 

[Extract ] 

Flag-Ship Wabash, 
Port Royal Harbor, S. C, May 14, 1862. 

Sir: I have read in the last papers the account of the recapture of the ship 
Emily St. Pierre, taken off Charleston, effected by clever artifice and en- 
forced by gagging and putting in irons the prize officers and crew. 

I cannot refrain from expressing the hope that the government purposes 
to insist upon the return of the Emily St. Pierre to the United States courts 
for adjudication, inasmuch as the recapture by the crew of a neutral vessel 
is, as I believe, contrary to law. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

S. F. DUPONT, 
Flag-Officer commanding South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. 

Hon. Gideon Welles, 

Secretary of the Navy, Washington. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 164.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 22, 1862. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the depart- 
ment, numbered from 243 to 246, both inclusive, and also of two printed 

7 



98 

circulars dated, respectively, on the 3d and 5th of May, consequent upon 
the recovery of New Orleans. 

I am not aware of any matter contained in these which calls for particu- 
lar notice, unless it be the injunction upon me to renew my appeals to the 
government of Great Britain for the revocation of the recognition of bel- 
ligerent rights, its original false step. 

I bad little expectation of success, but I felt it my duty at once to exe- 
cute the orders So, after the forms in connexion with the slave trade treaty 
on Tuesday had been completed, I asked the favor of a few minutes' further 
conversation on this subject. I alluded to the fact of your reception of my 
report of our last conference, and to your comments on it which had just 
reached me. I told him that you thought the course of events, and the de- 
cided turn the fortunes of war had taken since the date of that conference, 
justified you in presuming that some alteration in the views of the govern- 
ment must have ensued. I dwelt somewhat upon the unfavorable impres- 
sion that act had made on the people of the United States. It was the true 
root of the bitterness towards Great Britain that was felt there. All the 
later acts of assistance given here by private persons to the rebels, the 
knowledge of which tended to keep up the irritation, were viewed only as 
natural emanations from that fatal source. Every consular report that 
went, and there were a good many, giving details of ships and supplies and 
money transmitted to keep up the war, served merely to remind us of the 
original cause of offence. I did hope then that he would consider, before it 
should be too late to be useful, the expediency of some action that might 
tend to soften the asperity thus engendered. I believed that in your ur- 
gency you were actuated by a sincere desire to maintain kindly relations 
between the two countries, and to that end you labored to procure the re- 
moval of this unlucky obstruction. I certainly acted in that spirit myself. 

His lordship replied by saying that he did not see his way to any change 
of policy at present. We seemed to be going on so fast ourselves that the 
question might settle itself before a great while. 

I said that I should be sorry to have that result happen before any action 
had been taken here; for, after it, we should scarcely attach value to what 
seemed a mere form. 

His lordship remarked that the insurrection had certainly been a very 
formidable one. It embraced a great territory and a numerous population. 
The very magnitude of the means used to suppress it proved its nature. 
Under these circumstances the government had sought to remain perfectly 
neutral. It would lean to neither side. The wishes of the federal authori- 
ties had been that it should aid them, which would have been a departure 
from that line of policy. 

To this I replied, that whatever might be the intent of that policy, the 
practical effect of it had been materially to uphold the rebels. The declara- 
tion of it at so early a moment, before the government had had any time to 
organize its counteracting forces, was a prejudgment of the whole question 
in their favor. The people of the United States felt as if the putting the 
two sides on an equality was in the nature of a standing insult to them. 
And the manifest eagerness of influential parties in Great Britain to expe- 
dite all the means necessary to induce the misguided people to persevere in 
their undertaking was like the continual application of a nettle to flesh 
already raw. 

His lordship then fell back upon the same argument to which he has re- 
sorted in his note to me of the 1 7th instant, in answer to my previous re- 
monstances against these movements, a copy of which goes out with this 
despatch. He said that large supplies of similar materials had been ob- 



99 

tained here ou the part of the United States, which had been freely trans- 
ported and effectively used against the insurgents. 

I answered by admitting that at one time a quantity of arms and military 
stores had been purchased here as a purely commercial transaction for the 
use of the federal army; but that I had early objected to this practice, for 
the reason that it prevented me from pressing my remonstrances against a 
very different class of operations carried on by friends and sympathizers 
with the rebels in this island, and it had been discontinued. We had, indeed, 
purchased largely in Austria, but that government had never given any 
countenance to the insurgents. 

His lordship observed that that governmentjiad no commercial interests 
pressing upon it for protection. 

Here the conversation ceased. His lordship said that I had fully acquitted 
myself of my duty, and I took my leave. 

There was another topic touched upon prior to the commencement of this 
one, to which I shall advert in another despatch. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, May It, 1862. 

Sir: I do not wish to prolong this correspondence, and shall only make 
one remark in answer to your last letter. 

If the British government, by virtue of the prerogative of the crown or by 
authority of Parliament, had prohibited and could have prevented the con- 
veyance in British merchant ships of arms and ammunition to the Confede- 
rate States, and had allowed the transport of such contraband of war to 
New York and to other federal ports, her Majesty's government would have 
departed from the neutral position they have assumed and maintained. 

If, on the other hand, her Majesty's government had prohibited and could 
have preventedjthe transport of arms and ammunition to both the contend- 
ing parties, they would have deprived the United States of a great part of 
the means by which they have carried on the war. The arms and ammuni- 
tion received from Great Britain, as well as from other neutral countries, 
have enabled the United States to fit out the formidable armies now engaged 
in carrying on the war against the southern States, while by means of the 
blockade established by the federal government the southern States have 
been deprived of similar advantages. 

The impartial observance of neutral obligations by her Majesty's govern- 
ment has thus been exceedingly advantageous to the cause of the more 
powerful of the two contending parties. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams. 



too 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 165.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 23, 1862. 

Sir: In the conference with Lord Russell on the 20th, to which I have al- 
ready referred in nry yesterday's despatches, one other matter was touched 
upon which seemed to me deserving- of brief notice. That is the present 
state of the Mexican question. His lordship opened the matter by mention- 
ing- the fact, now well known, of the disruption of the joint agreement of 
the three powers, and the withdrawal of the forces of England and Spain. 
He seemed to speak of if rather in the way of indirectly reminding me of 
the conversation at Abergeldie Castle in September last, and of the fidelity 
with which this government had adhered to the assurances then given of 
non-intervention. He then referred with evident gratification to the course 
taken by General Prim, and read me extracts from despatches received from 
Madrid announcing the intention of the Spanish government to ratify it. 
He confessed to an early-formed and long-cherished feeling of kindness 
towards it, and seemed to take pride in this action of theirs as a justifica- 
tion of it. 

I joined with his lordship in the expression of satisfaction at the result, 
and remarked that, so far as Great Britain was concerned, it had not caused 
in me any surprise. But I could scarcely give the same credit to Spain, for 
it seemed to me that, at the outset, her intentions contemplated intervention 
and military conquest. I might, indeed, be so uncharitable as to suspect 
that the development of military and naval power in the United States 
which had been manifested of late might have had something to do in effect- 
ing a change. 

His lordship, on the contrary, reaffirmed his confidence in the good faith 
of Spain. He did not believe it had ever had a desire to interfere, and, as 
if foreseeing my disposition to cite the precipitate despatch of troops in ad- 
vance of the other parties, he met the objection at once by attributing it to 
a desire to supply for the army some opportunity of gaining distinction. 
The government had been for some time ambitious of reinstating the mili- 
tary reputation of the country, and to that end they were trying to furnish 
occasions for awarding praises and decorations to the officers and men for 
bravery and skill. 

I made no allusion to sundry givings out of the Spanish presses a few 
months since of the propriety of attempting to recover the atcient dominions 
of the crown in South America, but joyfully accepted. the result precisely 
as his lordship chose to present it. Neither did I venture to allude to the 
condition in which the matter has been left by the withdrawal of the two 
powers. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



101 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 258.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 26, 1862. 

Sib: I learn from the public journals, although no official notice has been 
received, that in the case of the Labuan the admiralty court in New York 
has decreed restitution upon the merits of the case. Information of this 
fact has been given to Lord Lyons. 

The defeat of General Banks at Winchester yesterday, and his withdrawal 
across the Potomac, are just now the prominent incidents of the war. A 
careful consideration of the affair results in the satisfactory conclusion that 
the movement of the enemy was one of merely energetic strategy. We 
suffer by it, however, only a temporary and local inconvenience, not at all 
likely to work any serious or extensive injury to the national cause. Abun- 
dant provision has been made for repairing the losses sustained, and recov- 
ering the little ground that has been given up. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, SfC. 

[Same to William L. Dayton, Esq., &c, Paris.] 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 260.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 28, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of May 8 (No. 156) has been received. 

There is a statement in the public journals that thirty vessels which had 
left British ports with a common design to run our blockade have gathered 
At Nassau, and that they are now remaining there, awaiting the relaxation 
of the blockade at some of the southern ports, which the President has per- 
mitted to take place on the 1st of June, preferring to avail themselves of 
that lawful privilege rather than persevere in their prohibited operations. 
I think, therefore, that we may congratulate ourselves upon having advanced 
to a new stage in our intercourse with maritime powers affecting the present 
troubles in the United States — a stage at which motives of sympathy in 
foreign countries with the insurgents, derived from the pressure of the 
blockade, will disappear. 

This stage is also marked by another improvement of the case, namely, 
the withdrawal from the ocean of the pirates who have occasionally sought 
shelter and protection in friendly ports while committing depredations on 
American commerce. 

Under the President's instructions I desire to improve the position thus 
attained to confer, if our representatives abroad shall think it discreet, with 
the friendly nations upon the prospects of the war and their future course 
in regard to it. 

By way of introduction, I beg to recall to your recollection the facts that, 
at the earliest proper moment, I set forth most distinctly the opinions of this 
government that the mutual interests, present and permanent, of all the 
maritime nations, including this country, require the preservation of har- 
monious relations between them, and that the same interests demand that. 



102 

so far as possible, peace shall prevail throughout the world, and especially 
in the United States and upon the American continent. 

In explanation of these views, I set forth the opinion that the industrial 
systems of western Europe and the United States, including their agricul- 
ture, manufactures, and commerce, are, in some respects, to be regarded 
less as distinct national systems than as one general combination of agri- 
cultural, manufacturing, and commercial agencies, in which a jar in one 
country necessarily produces disturbance in all the others; so that a serious 
disorganization of the machinery employed in production here cannot fail 
to result in derangement, probably in disaster, everywhere abroad. 

There are now some painful evidences that these speculations were not 
unsound. There is distress among the peasantry of Ireland, in the manu- 
facturing towns of Belgium, and the wine presses and silk looms in some 
parts of France seem to be coming to a dead stand. All the sufferers, I 
will not stop to inquire how justly, trace their misfortunes to the civil war 
of the United States. It is manifest that what the European nations want 
is an end of that war as speedy, and leaving the industrial system of this 
country as little disorganized, as possible. It would seem impossible for 
any considerate person to doubt that this is the very consummation which 
the government of the United States must want, even more than it can be 
desired by the European states. This government has expressed that want 
earnestly, decidedly, sometimes, perhaps, even impatiently. Nevertheless, 
the war has continued a whole year, against the wishes of Europe as well 
as of America. A new campaign is even beginning. In order to determine 
whether it is likely to reach the desired end, it will not be unprofitable to 
consider the causes of its prolongation to the present period. This govern- 
ment, at the beginning, assumed, and it has constantly insisted, that the 
Union could, must, and should be preserved. On the other hand, the Euro- 
pean nations, when they saw the storm burst upon the country, either 
doubted, or actually disbelieved, the possibility of that great salvation. 
Europe had but a subordinate and indirect interest in the great problem, 
and it supposed that if the United States could only be convinced that the 
Union could not, in the end, be preserved, they would at once forego the 
contest and consent to a national dissolution, which it was erroneously 
thought would be followed by peace, while we knew that it would only be 
the beginning of endless war. Thus European opinion has practically 
favored the insurgents and encouraged them with ephemeral sympathies 
and unreal expectations of foreign intervention, and has thus protracted 
the war to the present time. 

Certainly this government and the American people are even more con- 
" fident of the preservation of the Union now than they were a year ago, and 
are, therefore, even less likely now than they were then to accept peace with 
the inconceivable pains and perils of dissolution. Can it be presumptuous, 
then, for us to ask European statesmen to review, in the light of the events 
of the war, the opinion which they formed at so early a stage of it, that the 
opinion itself might, perhaps, properly be deemed a prejudice ? 

Of course, in such a review, the observer would not overlook the contrast 
between the position which the federal government held a year ago and its 
present situation. Then it had been practically expelled, with all its author- 
ities, civil, military, and naval, from every State south of the Potomac, Ohio, 
and Missouri rivers, while it was held in close siege in this capital, cut off 
from communication with even the States which had remained loyal. Now, 
it Las virtually retaken all the positions it so early lost on the seaboard; it 
possesses the Mississippi and all the other great natural highways, and has 
forced the insurgents to battle in the most inaccessible parts of the insur- 
rectionary district, The forces and the resources of the government are 



103 

unexhausted and increasing'. Those of the insurgents are diminished and 
becoming nearly exhausted. 

No one, either here or in Europe, now contests these simple facts. The 
only argument opposed to them is, that the insurgents have determined not 
to acknowledge the authority of the Union. The evidence of this is a cer- 
tain resolute and defiant tone maintained by their organs. 

Certainly so long as the insurgents have any hope of ultimate success, 
they could not be expected to discourse otherwise than in just such a tone, 
nor will they fail to cherish such a hope so long as they find a willingness 
to meet it with sympathy in Europe. The very last advices which came 
from that quarter, previous to the arrival there of the news of the fall of 
New Orleans and Norfolk, were full of speculations about some newly-con- 
ceived form of intervention. 

But it must be remembered that the insurgents are men, and that they 
may reasonably be expected to speak and to act like other belligerent 
factions under similar conditions. So also being men, and subject to the 
laws which determine the economy of society, they must in all cases con- 
form themselves, however unwillingly, to the circumstances by which they 
are surrounded. They cannot, more than other masses of men, determine 
for themselves, under one state of circumstances, what they will do under 
a different one. A writer upon war advises brave men never to nail their 
colors to the staff, remarking that if they shall be able, and find it desirable, 
they can maintain it there without nailing, while it will be more convenient 
to lower it if they shall find themselves unable or no longer desirous to keep 
it flying. But, speaking practically, what has been the result, thus far, in 
the present case ? Has disloyalty been found an indomitable sentiment in 
this war ? It pervaded even this capital and this District at the beginning 
of the strife. It no longer exists here. It divided Maryland, and provoked 
conflict there. The Union is now as strong in that State as in any one of 
the always loyal States. It committed Missouri to the pretended new con- 
federacy. Missouri is now active and earnest among the loyal States. It 
placed Kentucky in an attitude of neutrality. But Kentucky is to-day firm, 
resolute, and even self-devoted to the Union. In other regions where dis- 
loyalty was more general, such as Eastern Virginia, Tennessee, and Louis- 
iana, and North Carolina, acquiescence under the federal authorities has 
promptly followed their appearance there, and the preliminary steps are 
taken for the restoration of the laws of the Union. It is a simple fact that 
loyalty reappears everywhere just so fast as the successes of the government 
are deemed sufficient to afford a guarantee for reliance upon its protection. 
The disunionists, even in their strongest holds, are not a people, but only a 
faction, surpassing the loyal in numbers, and silencing them by terrors and 
severities in many places, but nevertheless too few and feeble to prevent 
the return of any district or any State to the Union in the presence and 
under the protection of the federal authorities. 

The President asks foreign nations to consider that we are only at the 
end of one year now, and yet the whole effective mass of the insurrectionary 
region has been brought into the field by conscription. The credit of the 
revolution is dead before the first dollar has been raised by taxation to 
support it, and the territory which must bear taxation is at once reduced t© 
the narrowest limits, and is exhausted of its wealth and supplies. 

The power of a losing faction, under any circumstances, must continually 
grow less ; but that of the disunionists is abating under the operation of a 
cause peculiar to themselves, which it is now my duty to bring forward — I 
mean the practice of African slavery. 

I am aware that in regard to this point I am opening a subject which 
was early interdicted in this correspondence. The reason for the interdic- 



104 

tion, and the reason for a departure from it, are, however, equally obvious. 
It was properly left out of view, so long as it might be reasonably hoped 
that by the practice of magnanimity this government might cover that 
weakness of the insurgents without encouraging them to persevere in their 
treasonable conspiracy against the Union. They have protracted the war a 
year, notwithstanding this forbearance of the government ; and yet they 
persist in invoking foreign arms to end a domestic strife, while they have 
forced slavery into such prominence that it cannot be overlooked. 

The region where the insurrection still remains flagrant embraces all or 
parts of several States, with a white population of four and a half million, 
and a negro population of three and a half million, chiefly slaves. It is thus 
seen to be a war between two parties of the white race, not only in the 
presence but in the very midst of the enslaved negro race. It is notorious, 
we could not conceal the fact if we would, that the dispute between them 
arose out of the questions in which the negro race have a deep and lasting 
interest, and that their sympathies, wishes, and interests, naturally, neces- 
sarily, inevitably, fall on the side of the Union. Such a civil war between 
two parties of the white race in such a place, and under such circumstances, 
could not be expected to continue long before the negro race would begin 
to manifest some sensibility and some excitement. We have arrived at 
that stage already. Everywhere the American general receives his most 
useful and reliable information from the negro, who hails his coming as a 
harbinger of freedom. Wherever the national army advances into the in- 
surrectionary region, African bondsmen, escaping from their insurrectionary 
masters, come out to meet it and to offer their service and labor in whatever 
capacity they may be desired. So many of these bondsmen have, even 
without the invitation, and often against the opposition of the federal mili- 
tary and naval authorities, made their way from bondage among the in- 
surgents to freedom among the loyalists, that the government finds itself 
occupied with the consideration of measures to provide them with domicils 
at home or abroad. Not less than a hundred such escape every day, and 
as the army advances the number increases. If the war should continue 
indefinitely, every slave will become, not only a freeman, but an absentee. 
If the insurgents should resist their escape, how could they hope to prevent 
the civil war they have inaugurated from degenerating into a servile war ? 
True, a servile population, especially one so long enslaved as the Africans 
in the insurrectionary States, require time and trial before they can organize 
a servile war ; but if the war continues indefinitely, a servile war is only a 
question of time. The problem, then, is whether the strife shall be left to 
go on to that point. The government, animated by a just regard for the 
general welfare, including that of the insurrectionary States, adopts a policy 
designed at once to save the Union and rescue society from that fearful 
catastrophe, while it consults the ultimate peaceful relief of the nation from 
slavery. It cannot be necessary to prove to any enlightened statesman that 
the labor of the African in the insurrectionary region is at present indis- 
pensable, as a resource of the insurgents, for continuing the war, nor is it 
now necessary to show that this same labor is the basis of the whole indus- 
trial system existing in that region. The war is thus seen to be producing 
already a disorganization of the industrial system of the insurrectionary 
States, and tending to a subversion of even their social system. Let it next 
be considered that the European systems of industry are largely based upon 
the African slave labor of the insurrectionary States employed in the pro- 
duction of cotton, tobacco, and rice, and on the free labor of the other States 
employed in producing cereals, out of which combined productions arises 
the demand for European productions, materials, and fabrics. The disor- 
ganization of industry, which is already revealing itself in the insurrection- 



105 

ary States, cannot but impair their ability to prosecute the war, and at the 
same time result indirectly in greater distress in Europe. 

On the other hand, this disorganization operates far less injuriously at 
present to the federal government and to the loyal States. Ever}' African 
laborer who escapes from his service is not only lost to the support of the 
insurrection, but he brings an accession to the productive labor of the loyal 
States, and to that extent increases their ability to continue the contest in 
which they are reluctantly engaged. The failure of foreign importations, 
as heretofore, in return for the exportation of southern staples, stimulates 
the manufacturing industry of the loyal States. Immigration is accelerated 
by an activity in these States, resulting from extended manufacture and 
prosecution of the war. Thus has the phenomenon appeared, disappointing 
so many prophecies in Europe, that the war impoverishes and exhausts only 
the insurrection, and not the Union. I shall not contend that these effects 
would be perpetual. I know there is a reckoning for every nation that has 
the misfortune to be involved in war, and I do not expect for the United 
States any exemption from that inexorable law. But it is enough for my 
present purpose that the penalties are neither more severe nor more immi- 
nent than the loyal States can endure while bringing this unhappy contest 
to its desired conclusion. Let us now suppose that any one or more Euro- 
pean states should think it right or expedient to intervene by force to oblige 
the United States to accept a compromise of their sovereignty. What other 
effect could it produce than to render inevitable, and even hurry on, that 
servile war, so completely destructive of all European interests in this coun- 
try, which this government so studiously strives to avoid ? I know that 
the danger of any foreign nation attempting such a policy, if it has ever 
existed, has passed, as I am happy in knowing that no foreign government 
has ever threatened such intervention, while several magnanimous govern- 
ments have repudiated all unfriendly designs. I have put forward that 
hypothesis only by way of preface to a question not less significant, namely, 
what must be the effect of such a policy abroad as will encourage the in- 
surgents with hopes of an intervention which is never to occur ? Is not 
that effect visible in the obstinacy of the insurgents in their destruction of 
the cotton and tobacco already cultivated and liable to be brought into 
commerce by the return of peace, and in their studied neglect of the planting 
the seed of their staples, and turning so much of the African labor as they 
are able to save into the production of supplies of provisions and forage, to 
enable them to continue the war ? The effect will be further developed as 
time goes on in opening a way for that servile war which, if it shall be per- 
mitted to come, will produce infinite suffering throughout the world, and 
can only at last result in an entirely new system of trade and commerce 
between the United States and all foreign nations. 

I need not say that these views are not grounded on any proceedings or 
expressions of the British government, and are to be submitted to them, only 
as they will be to other States, from a strong desire on the part of the Pres- 
ident that the true condition of the present strife may be everywhere fully 
understood. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM. H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC, #c., $ic. 



106 

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 261.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 29, 1862. , 

Sir: Your despatch of May 9, No. 158, has been received. It communi- 
cates the decision of her Britannic Majesty's government, declining to restore 
to us the Emily St. Pierre, which, after having been captured in the act 
of violating the blockade, and put into the care of a prize crew, was 
reconquered from them by the officers and crew of the vessel and conducted 
into a British port, and, as we now learn, was repossessed by her owners. 

The despatch is accompanied by a note from Earl Russell explaining the 
grounds upon which the denial is placed. 

I defer an examination of these reasons until I shall have received a copy 
of the reply to Earl Russell, which you expected to make by way of closing 
the correspondence upon the subject. 

I think it proper, however, to observe, at present, that the reasons seem to 
be limited to a want of power vested in the government to restore, and do 
not bear at all upon the justice or the legality of the demand. Under such 
circumstances this government has in more than one instance admitted the 
claim, and appealed to legislative authority for the power to satisfy it, and 
it has been promptly conferred aud exercised. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No 263.] Department op State, 

Washington, May 31, 1862. 

Sir: Since the instruction to you (No. 248) of the 9th instant was written, 
it has occurred to me that an attempt might have been made to obtain the 
restitution of the Emily St. Pierre by libelling her in the British admiralty 
court. Application has accordingly been made to the Secretary of the N avy 
for the name of the capturing vessel and of her commander. A copy of his 
reply is enclosed. When this reaches you it may be too late for the judicial 
proceedings referred to, as the cargo of the vessel will probably have been 
discharged, and the vessel herself may not be within reach of process from 
the court. If, however, circumstances should, in your judgment, warrant it, 
you may at least take the advice of counsel upon the subject and charge the 
expense in your accounts. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sfc, fyc, SfC. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 264.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 2, 1862. 

Sir: The European mail is laid before me only this morning. My de- 
spatches for Europe must go to-morrow morning. I will defer replies to 
complaints abroad until the departure of another steamer. 



107 

My despatches of last week gave information of the surprise and capture 
of Colonel Kenley's small force at Front Royal, and of an attack by Jackson 
with a superior force upon General Banks, and his well-conducted retreat 
from Winchester across the Potomac, at Williamsport. I mentioned that all 
due preparations had been made to retrieve these misfortunes, and that I 
thought they would be followed by no serious results. The week which 
began so in auspiciously was filled with events indicative of a general and 
speedy triumph of the Union armies. 

First. Recruiting, except under heavy restrictions, had been suspended 
for some months by order of the government. The reverses alluded to 
favored a removal of those restrictions, and an order for renewal of enlist- 
ments, with a view to re-enforce our army in Virginia and supply the waste 
which had occurred in all the armies. The country responded at once, with 
even greater enthusiasm than a year ago. There is a third uprising of 
the people in behalf of the Union, inspired by confidence in the administra- 
tion and in the land and naval forces. 

General Banks's army, which was reduced to six thousand men, and so 
unfortunately put horsdu combat, swelled in the course of the week to twenty 
thousand men, and it is now, in its turn, pursuing the enemy who had driven 
it out of the valley of Virginia. Large forces were also sent into the valley 
from the east, the south, and the west, to meet the retiring insurgents, and, as- 
we trust, to bring the war in that quarter to a prompt conclusion. 

While these transactions of minor importance were engaging the most 
careful consideration of the government, the attention of the nation, and of 
the world, so far as it occupies itself with our affairs, was all the time fixed 
upon two points, Corinth and Richmond, where battles seemed imminent, 
which, resulting in our favor, must be decisive of the painful controversy. 
The insurgents, demoralized and broken, on the 28th day of last month, 
evacuated the former position with all its advantages and its prestige, and 
thus the war in the Mississippi valley may be deemed virtually ended. 

During the early part of the week General McClellan fought battles and 
won advantages at Richmond of great moment. On Saturday the insurgents, 
availing themselves of a severe storm which, flooding the valley of the 
Chickahominy, seemed likely to divide our forces, attacked our left on the 
south side of that river with a superior force and caused it to break, with 
some loss uf ordnance and stores. Re-enforcements, however, were soon 
brought forward, and the position lost was regained. The two armies 
bivouacked on the field at night. The battle was renewed the next morn- 
ing with the result of a repulse of the insurgents at every point. The army 
of General McClellan will be rapidly strengthened, although it is already 
deemed adequate to the capture of Richmond. 

Misunderstandings have occurred between Geneial Butler and the consuls 
of several maritime states at New Orleans. This was, perhaps, unavoidable 
under the circumstances. You will receive herewith a paper which will 
show you the course that has been taken by the President to remove any 
just ground of complaint that may exist, and prevent any further difficulties 
of that kind. 

Finally, I have the pleasure to inform you that a wholesome moral sen- 
timent is already rapidly revealing itself in the insurrectionary region. 
It shows itself somewhat slowly indeed, but nevertheless distinctly at 

Norfolk. Regiments for the federal army are forming in North Carolina. 
-* * * * # ' # * 

In Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana there are unmistakable signs of 
returning loyalty. No American now indulges any doubt that the integrity 
of the Union will be triumphantly maintained. 

We have good authority for questioning the fact of any such general 



' 108 

•destruction of cotton by the insurgents as their organs have asserted. The 
blockade was relaxed at the ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans 
yesterday, in pursuance of the proclamation of the President, heretofore 
issued. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., 8fc., fyc. 

[Same to Mr. Dayton, No. 161.] 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 266.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 2, 1862. 

Sir: The arrival of your despatch, No. 159, has been already acknowl- 
edged. 

The Japanese ambassadors seem to have interrupted a very interesting 
conversation between yourself and Earl Russell on the subject of the rela- 
tions existing between this country and Great Britain. I cannot but think 
that if it had been continued it would have been closed with beneficial 
results. I hope that Japan may have gained an equivalent for our loss 
resulting from the interruption. 

Some materials for enforcing the views you so justly presented, with so 
much energy and so much candor, in that interview, have already been sent 
forward to you. There has just now fallen into our hands a very extraordi- 
nary document, being a report made by Caleb Huse, who calls himself a 
captain of artillery, and who is an agent of the insurgents in Europe, to the 
chief of the artillery of the war department of the insurgents. It recites 
purchases of arms, munitions of war, and military supplies, which have 
been shipped by him in England and elsewhere in the mad attempt to over- 
throw the federal Union. It reveals enough to show that the complaints 
you have made to Earl Russell fell infinitely short of the real abuses of neu- 
trality which have been committed in Great Britain in the very face of her 
Majesty's government. The revolution is now approaching its end, and it 
is just at this moment that the proof becomes irresistible that, if it had been 
successful, its success would have been due to the aid and assistance it 
-derived from the people of Great Britain, notwithstanding the appeals and 
remonstrances of this government. The President of the United States has 
persistently expressed his anxiety throughout the whole distempered period 
which we have passed, that it might end in the preservation of friendly and 
cordial relations with all the states with which we have heretofore lived in 
amity, and especially with Great Britain. Whoever shall read the document 
I now send you will not wonder that the President thinks it desirable that 
the government of Great Britain should consider, before the war closes, 
what are likely to be the sentiments of the two nations in regard to each 
•other after that event shall have occurred. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
■Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



109 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 211.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 1, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of May 23, No. 165, has been received. You will 
express confidentially to Earl Russell the satisfaction with which the Presi- 
dent has received the explanations made through you by Earl Russell on 
the subject of the changed condition of affairs in Mexico. 

You have expressed to his lordship, as well as to myself, some doubts of 
the candor and loyalty of the Spanish government in the declarations of 
approval of the Commanding General Prim which that government has 
made to Earl Russell. It gives me pleasure to inform you that these decla- 
rations harmonize entirely with the tone of all the communications on the 
same subject which have been received at this department from Mr. Calderon 
Collantes. 

The new complication of affairs in Mexico is a cause of serious concern 
to the government of the United States. Mr. Corwin has negotiated a treaty 
which stipulates a loan of eleven million of dollars to the Mexican govern- 
ment. But the condition ©f affairs in our own country, to say nothing of 
the state of things in Mexico, is such as to make it extremely doubtful 
whether that measure would receive at present the approval of the Senate 
of the United States. The President therefore holds the subject in reserve. 

The contents of this despatch may be made known in confidence to Earl 
Russell. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., 8fC, Sfc., SfC. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 212.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 9, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of May 22, No. 164, has been submitted to the Presi- 
dent. He regrets that her Majesty's government does not deem it important 
to reconsider its attitude towards the United States. 

You will receive herewith information of a naval conflict at Memphis, 
resulting in the surrender of the city and in the restoration of the national 
commerce throughout the whole navigable courses of the Mississippi and 
its tributaries. 

Of all the important ports and towns, only Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, 
and Richmond remain in the hands of the insurgents. The investment of 
the three former is going on successfully. Floods have swollen the Chicka- 
hominy, which, in ordinary seasons, is only a few yards wide, into a river 
two miles in breadth. This inundation now for a few days delays the 
operations against Richmond, but they will be prosecuted with vigor as soon 
as the condition of the field shall permit. 

The condition of our relations with maritime powers is becoming a sub- 
ject of popular debate, and is likely to be agitated in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. It is impossible here to understand the policy by which the 
British government is persuaded that the sensibilities of this country, upon 



110 

the subject of its sovereignty and true independence, in such a crisis as 
this, are wisely disregarded. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 273.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 9, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of the 16th of May, No. 160, has been received. 

The arguments for the restitution of the Emily St. Pierre are so conclu- 
sive that I am happy in being authorized to assume them on behalf of this 
government without making any addition to them. 

Of course we cannot send our naval police into British waters to recap- 
ture the Emily St. Pierre and bring her before our courts of admiralty. 
You have been instructed to take counsel upon the question whether our 
captors can maintain proceedings against the rescuers and the vessel in the 
British admiralty. When you shall have given us the result of these inqui- 
ries I shall again submit the whole subject to the President for his further 
directions. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seivard. 



No. 174.] Legation of the United States, 

London, June 13, 1862. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit a copy of Lord Russell's note to me, 
just received, in reply to mine of the 28th of May, on the subject of the ship 
Emily St. Pierre. At the same time I transmit a copy of my reply. 

It seems to me that after this no resource is left in cases of seizure for 
violating the blockade but to put the officers in irons. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, June 12, 1862. 

Sir: I have had the honor to receive your further letter of the 28th of 
I\lay respecting the case of the Emily St. Pierre. 

In that letter you profess to review and re-examine all the circumstances 
of the case; but I do not observe that you cite any new authorities in sup- 
port of your claim for the surrender of the vessel to the captors from whom 



Ill 

she was rescued, or that you refer to airy precedent tending to show that a 
demand, similar to that which you now make, has been ever made by any 
belligerent upon a neutral government, or acceded to by a neutral govern- 
ment. 

Passing, however, to the observations in your letter now before me, her 
Majesty's goverment cannot acquiesce in your assumption that the govern- 
ments of nations incur any responsibility for wrongful and fraudulent acts 
committed by their subjects against friendly nations by not taking positive 
measures of their own, manifesting either the determination to repress such 
acts on the part of their subjects, or the desire to repair them after they 
have been committed. It is a general principle that each nation deals only 
with offences committed against its own laws, and is not called upon to 
carry into effect, or to aid in carrying into effect, the laws of foreign nations 
against persons who may have violated them, and who may be found within 
its territory. 

England, France, and the United States have constantly, either by diplo- 
matic acts, or by decisions of their tribunals, expressed their opinion that, 
upon principles of international law, irrespective of treaty, the surrender of 
a foreign criminal who has taken refuge within their territory cannot be 
demanded. Such a criminal has not offended against the law of the country 
in which he is found, and that country is not bound to take notice of his 
having violated the law of a foreign State; and therefore, by parity of 
reason, neutral nations are not bound to punish their subjects for offences 
committed only agrnnst the laws of war as enforced by belligerents, nor to 
restore property rescued by their subjects from foreign captors. 

It is notorious that* a nation takes no notice of offences either begun or 
committed, or carried out and concluded, within its territory against the 
fiscal laws of another nation; it lends such nations no aid in enforcing those 
laws, or in apprehending or punishing those who break them; it does not 
restore property brought into its territory out of a foreign state by smug- 
gling; it does not interfere with property in its territory or on board its 
vessels "in transitu" to be smuggled into a foreign state; it incurs no in- 
ternational responsibility by tolerating the acts of persons engaged in such 
transactions; it does not attempt by any positive measures of its own to 
manifest either the will to repress the commission of the act or the desire 
to repair it after it is done. • 

The principle on which the foreign enlistment act is founded is broadly 
distinguishable from, and is a plain exception to, what I have now stated. 
Attempts on the part of the subjects of a neutral government to take part 
in a war, or to make use of the neutral territory as an arsenal or barrack 
for the preparation and inception of direct and immediate hostilities against 
a State with which their government is at peace, as by enlisting soldiers or 
fitting out ships-of-war, and so converting, as it were, neutral territory into 
a hostile depot or post in order to carry on hostilities therefrom, have an 
obvious tendency to involve in the war the neutral government which tole- 
rates such proceedings. Such attempts, if unchecked, might imply, at least, 
an indirect participation in hostile acts, and they are, therefore, consistently 
treated by the government of the neutral state as offences against its public 
policy and safety, which may thereby be implicated. But these acts are 
widely different from such offences against the laws of war exclusively as 
attempts by merchant ships to break blockade or the rescue of an individual 
ship from her prize crew. Not only in the case of neutrals in war, but in 
all cases falling within the same general principle, the nation to whom the 
parties complained of belong leaves to other nations who may suffer by the 
acts of such parties the infliction of the penalty. It may happen that the 
nation receiving the injury may have an opportunity of resenting it should 



112 

it, perchance, catch the offenders within its jurisdiction. Had the Emily 
St. Pierre fallen a second time into the hands of a United States cruiser, a 
prize court of the United States would, in all probability, have condemned 
the ship and cargo. Nor would h'er Majesty's government have complained 
of a condemnation judicially pronounced in accordance with the law of 
'nations. 

Her Majesty's government, in adhering to this line of conduct, are, there- 
fore, acting in accordance with reason, policy, and the common and universal 
usage of nations in like cases. 

You speak of the rescue of the Emily St. Pierre as being a fraud by the 
law of nations. But whether the act of rescue be viewed as one of fraud 
or of force, or as partaking of both characters, the act was done only 
against the rights accruing to a belligerent under the law of nations re- 
lating to war, and in violation of the law of war; which, whilst it permits 
the belligerent to exercise and enforce such rights against neutrals by the 
peculiar and exceptional right of capture, at the same time leaves to the 
belligerent alone the duty and confers upon him the power of vindicating 
such rights and of enforcing such law. The same law not only does not 
require, but does not even permit, neutral nations to carry out belligerent 
rights. 

You allude to the conduct of the United States government in the case of 
the Trent; but the flagrant wrong done in that case was done by a naval 
officer in the service of the United States; the prisoners whose release was 
demanded were in the direct custody and keeping of th£ executive govern- 
ment, and the government of the United States had actually the power to 
deliver them up, and did deliver them up, to the BrilPish government. But 
the Emily St. Pierre is not in the power of the executive government of this 
country; and the lav? of England, as well as the law of nations, forbids the 
executive government from taking away that ship from its legal owners. 

I do not think it necessary to dwell, or even to remark, on the observa- 
tions which you repeat in your present letter as to the terms of her Majesty's 
proclamation, and as to the course which you suggest her Majesty's govern- 
ment should adopt for giving effect to them. 

I can only again assure you that her Majesty's government have been 
most careful in observing strictly that impartial course which neutrality 
enjoins. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, SfC, SfC. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Bussell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, June 13, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your lord- 
ship's note of the 12th instant, in reply to mine of the 28th of May last, on 
the case of the ship Emily St. Pierre. As I do not perceive that its con- 
tents materially change the nature of the issue that had been already made 
up, I shall content myself with the transmission of a copy, to complete the 
correspondence on the subject, to the government of the United States. 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest considera- 
tion with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, fyc, $fc., fyc. 



113 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 
• [Extracts.] 

No. 115.] Legation of the United States, 

London, June 18, 1862. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the depart- 
ment numbered from 259 to 261, both inclusive. * * * * 

The general tenor of these papers is more cheering than that of any re- 
ceived within a corresponding space of time since the day I first arrived at 
this post. I am in hopes that the effect of the intelligence may be useful 
here, where the genuine sentiment of the governing classes becomes more 
and more visible every hour. The only consolation now left for the disap- 
pointed spirits who have so confidently counted upon a division of the Union 
into two nations is the belief that at any rate there can be no lasting har- 
mony whilst we remain one. The eagerness with which they hunt up the 
petty details to confirm this notion, and keep out of sight whatever goes to 
shake it, is deserving of notice only as it betrays the temper in which the 
struggle has been viewed in this kingdom from the outset. 

Since the despatch of your No. 261 you will have received my letter of 
the 30th of May, No. 168, covering a copy of my note to Lord Russell and 
his reply, which close the correspondence respecting the case of the Emily 
St. Pierre. I am not sure whether, as the matter has been left, the govern- 
ment would consider it advisable that I should act on the suggestion in 
your letter. All the consultations with lawyers and efforts to invoke the 
aid of courts made thus far have terminated only in the payment of large 
fees to the one and the abnegation of rights of jurisdiction by the other. 
Should it be the wish of the President, however, after an examination of the 
whole correspondence, to take that course, I shall very cheerfully adopt it. 

It is not a little strange that this very question appears to have occupied 
the attention of the two governments so far back as in the year 1800. My 
attention has been called to this fact by my under secretary, Mr. Moran, 
who happened to find the correspondence on the subject in the third volume 
of the collection of American State Papers relating to foreign affairs. It 
was the British government which then made the claim on almost the iden- 
tical grounds taken by me, and the American declined acceding to it, sub- 
stantially for the same reasons given by Lord Russell. The case is the 
more remarkable that it is shown to have been decided not without difficulty 
in the cabinet of President Adams. The opinion of Mr. McHenry, as given 
in that work, is not less remarkable for its soundness than for its singular 
sagacity in predicting the ill consequence of the course then taken. At that 
date the law of rescue had not been laid down with the distinctness which 
it had assumed under the dicta of Lord Stowell. In the course that I felt it 
my duty to take I have acted on my own responsibility, it is true, but as yet 
I see nothing to take back. 

I have the honor to transmit copies of the correspondence relating to the 
claim of the ship Daring, of Boston, which has passed in consequence of 
the directions contained in your despatch No. 251. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



114 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 

Lesation of the United States, 

London, June 1.1, 1862. 

My Lord: I am instructed to submit to the consideration of her Majesty's 
government copies of papers relating to the ship Daring, of Boston, in the 
United States, and to the damage and loss experienced by the owners, grow- 
ing out of the detention of a shipment of a quantity of saltpetre at Calcutta, 
in the month of December last, made prior to the reception of her Majesty's 
proclamation prohibiting the export thereof. 

As I cannot entertain a doubt of the disposition of her Majesty's govern- 
ment to administer relief in cases of hardship to citizens of a friendly nation 
engaged in legitimate trade, occasioned by the retroactive operation of a 
public act of which they could have had no knowledge, provided that the 
facts be clearly established, I simply content myself with expressing the 
hope that the papers will receive from your lordship such attention as they 
shall appear on examination to deserve. 

Renewing the assurances of my highest consideration, I have the honor to 
be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, SfO., fy-c, fyv. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, June 16, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th 
instant, enclosing papers relative to the claim of the owners of the United 
States vessel Daring, to be compensated by her Majesty's government on 
account of the detention of some saltpetre shipped on board that vessel at 
Calcutta, and I have to inform you that I have lost no time in forwarding 
these papers for the consideration of the proper department of her Majesty's 
government. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sfc, fyc, Sfc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. IT 6.1 Legation of the United States, 

London, June 20, 1862. 

Sir: T had a conference with Lord Russell yesterday at four o'clock. I 
began it by asking for copies of the papers relating to the case of Mr. Fau- 
chet, mentioned in the memorandum attached to your No. 265. His lordship 
took a note and promised to furnish them. 

T then mentioned to him the receipt of a copy of the intercepted letter of 
Mr. Huse, which accompanied your No. 266. I observed that it went to 
show the representations heretofore made by me of the action of rebel 



115 

officers here not to have been exaggerated. To that end I had caused a 
copy to be made which I would leave with hirn. 

On the main object for which I had sought an interview, the reading to 
him your despatch No. 260, I found, upon an examination of the various 
papers I had brought with me, that I had left it at home after all. But I 
gave the substance of it, and as his lordship intimated that he would like a 
copy of it, and I saw no objection to it, I agreed to send him one instead of 
putting him to the trouble of another correspondence. 

We then had some desultory conversation on the case of the Emily St. 
Pierre, and on the progress of the war, which last his lordship seemed to 
admit to have the appearance of drawing to a close. We also talked over 
the action of General Butler. On the. whole, I have never known an occa- 
sion in which his lordship manifested more good humor and a more kindly 
spirit. The latest manifestation of it may be perceived in the remarks made 
by him a short time afterwards in the House of Lords. 

This day the motion of Mr. Lindsay, affirming the desirableness of the re- 
cognition of the insurgents, is to be brought forward in the House of Com- 
mons. His lordship casually alluded to it in the course of our conversation 
as a matter of little importance. In point of fact, the character of our latest 
news would seem to render the agitation of the question almost ridiculous. 
A newspaper report of the result will doubtless go out in the steamer that 
carries this despatch. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 215.] Department of Stats;. 

Washington, June 23, 1862. 

Sir: I send you a copy of a report made by Lieutenant Charles McDougal, 
of the United States navy, dated April 13, 1862, showing that, in pursuance 
of orders from the British admiralty, he had been required to remove the 
United States ship-of-war Saginaw from the colony of Hong Kong,in China, and 
its dependencies. The interests of American commerce in the east require 
the presence of American vessels there, and with it the enjoyment of all the 
rights of maritime powers. No British interest can be injuriously affected 
by the presence of such vessels. But, on the other hand, their presence is 
beneficial to the interests of all the western powers. You will please make 
the fact communicated by Lieutenant McDougal' known to Earl Russell, as 
a pregnant illustration of the unnecessary and injurious operations of the 
attitude held by the British government in regard to the insurrection exist- 
ing in the United States. We shall no further urge a, change of that atti- 
tude, having exhausted the argument. But it will occur to every one that 
the American people are not likely to be always satisfied with performing: 
treaty stipulations without reciprocity. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H, SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., S^c., fyc. 



116 



Lieutenant McDougal to Mr. Welles. 

U. S. Steamer Saginaw, 
Macao, April 13, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to report the following: 

The anticipated troubles with England having subsided, on the 19th ultimo 
I removed this vessel from this place to Hong Kong, deeming Hong Kong 
to be the better place for carrying out any instructions, I might receive from 
the department concerning her. 

On the 5th instant I received a call from the harbor-master, who informed 
me that he had been instructed to notify me to remove the United States 
steamer Saginaw from Hong Kong, at the same time handing me a letter 
containing the notification and enclosing a proclamation just issued by the 
governor, all of which I enclose. 

There being no other course for me to pursue than that of complying with 
the requirements made, on the 10th instant I got under way and steamed 
over to this place, where I shall await instructions from the department. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES J. McDOUGAL, 
Lieut. U. S. navy, in charge of U. S. steamer Saginaw. 
Hon. Gideon Welles, 

Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C. 



lhe Harbor-Master at Hong Kong to Lieutenant McDougal. 

No. 3.] Harbor-Master's Office, 

Hong Kong, April 4, 1S62. 

Sir: I have the honor to enclose a proclamation issued by his excellency 
the governor, having reference to the hostilities which are now carried on 
between the States of North America which have seceded from the Union 
and those which adhere to it, and, in compliance with its provisions, beg to 
request you will be good enough to remove the United States sloop-of-war 
Saginaw, under your command, from the colony of Hong Kong and its de- 
pendencies. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant, 

H. G. THOMSETT, Harbor-Master, &c. 
The Officer Commanding 

United States sloop-of-war Saginaw. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 
[Extracts.] 

No. 217.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 24, 1862. 
Sir : Your despatch Of June 6 (No. Ill) has been received. 

The account of public opinion and public feeling in England concerning 
our affairs which it contains harmonizes in all respects with Mr. Dayton's 



117 

report that the statesmen of France, including the Emperor, are no less 
skeptical about the restoration of the Union since the capture of New Or- 
leans than they were before. You tell me that in England they still point 
to the delays at Richmond and Corinth, and they enlarge upon the absence 
of displays of Union feeling in New Orleans and Norfolk. Ah, well! skepti- 
cism must be expected in this world in regard to new political systems, 
insomuch as even Divine revelation needs the aid of miracles to make con- 
verts to a new religious faith. Corinth had already fallen on the very day 
when its supposed possession by the insurgents was deemed by the British 
public a ground for withholding their faith. A battle had also then been 
fought at Richmond, which, we think, was preparatory to the surrender or 
evacuation of that city. Trade has actively begun at New Orleans, and 
cotton is shipped from Memphis to New York. Unbiased observers would 
discern no sign of a possible recovery of the Mississippi and its immediate 
and remote tributaries by the insurgents. Unbiased thinkers would con- 
clude that the authority of the nation whose naval and merchant marine 
navigate every river in the United States would not long be denied by the 
people living on their borders, especially if it should be content with defend- 
ing them against dangers, carrying their mails, and distributing among 
them rewards and honors, while it left them in the possession of rights of 
self-government in a degree elsewhere unknown. 

The reassurance of the favor of the Commons which the ministry have 
recently received is probably auspicious to the welfare of their great coun- 
try. To us it brings the modified gratification that, unsatisfactory as its 
policy towards this country is, we are taught to believe, I know not how 
justl} 7 , that the party which seeks its overthrow is even more intolerant of a 
nation which prefers union, independence, and peace under republican insti- 
tutions to division and subjection to foreign domination, with endless war. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. TT9.] Legation of the United States, 

London, June 26, 1862. 

Sir : Notwithstanding the adverse news lately flowing in from America 
to the sympathizers with the rebels respecting the loss of their vessels and 
outfits, the effect of which has been to put an end to insurance on such risks, 
I continue to receive information of the preparation of such adventurers. 
One most flagrant instance has been presented to my attention by Mr. 
Dudley, the consul at Liverpool. I considered it so important that I have 
felt it my duty to make a representation of it to her Majesty's government. 
The uniform ill-success which has attended all my preceding remonstrances 
especially in the very parallel case of the gunboat Oreto, makes me entertain 
little hope of a more favorable result now. But the record would hardly 
seem complete without inserting it. 

As Captain Craven, of the Tuscarora, has sent notice to this legation of 
his departure from Gibraltar and his arrival at Cadiz, I have taken the 
responsibility of asking him to come to Southampton for orders. Should 



118 

t be possible to take any measures with prudence to break up the voyage 
of this vessel, I shall advise hirn of the fact. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHAELES FEANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 
[Extracts.] 



No. 180.] Legation of the United States, 

London, June 26, 1862. 

Sir : Matters remain here pretty much in the same condition that they 
were in last week. The pressure for cotton is increasing in severity as the 
stock decreases. A sudden demand from the continent has led to the export 
of a considerable quantity, the effect of which has been to derange the calcu- 
lations of the probable duration of the amount on hand. This consideration, 
taken together with the late unfavorable weather to the growing crops, 
tends to make people grave. There is not, however, so much talk of inter- 
vention or even of mediation in our affairs as there was some weeks ago. 
The news of the capture of Memphis and of the recovery of our control of 
the Mississippi, like that of every preceding stroke of a decisive character, 
put an end for the time to such agitation. The impression is growing 
stronger that all concerted resistance to us will before long be at an end. 
But there is still an eager belief, that is fostered by the confederate emissa- 
ries, that there will be irregular and continuous opposition to an extent 
sufficient to make peace and reunion impossible. Some are still supported 
by a lingering hope that the movements of the Emperor Napoleon in Mexico 
may take a turn against the United States. The darling desire of the gov- 
erning classes that the United States may be irrevocably divided, though 
subdued in expression by events, still remains as closely cherished as it was 
on the first breaking out of the disturbances. 

It is not to be denied, however, that the trial to which the people of this 
country are about to be subjected is a most serious one. We may yet hope 
that the fears entertained of the growing crop will prove ill-founded. Even 
in that case it is difficult to see how the operations in the great manufacturing 
counties are to be carried through the next winter without severe suffering. 
It is scarcely to be supposed that the crop of cotton now in the ground in 
the United States will at all compare in amount with that of ordinary years, 
and it may be Very small. In any event, it will not be available until quite 
late in the season. The present stock will last, perhaps, three months. The 
only resource left for a supply is in the disposition that may be made of the 
remainder of the crop of last year. The exaggerated accounts of destruction 
which come from the American papers have the effect of persuading people 
that the spirit which inspires this sacrifice is pervading the entire popula- 
tion of the slaveholding States. Hence, that no dependence is to be put on 
any considerable aid from this source. At the same time, it seems impossi- 
ble to find fault with the government of the United States, which is doing 
everything in its power to open the channels of supply. All that it could 
be expected to do further is to proceed in the same policy as fast as circum- 
stances will appear to justify it. I uniformly reply to all representations 
made to me that great movements require time. Hence, that it is not wise 



119 

to prejudge anything 1 in the existing condition of America. Thus far our 
progress has outstripped all their expectations. It may do so to the end of 
the chapter. Nay, it will do so, provided tliey do not choose to put obsta- 
cles in the way. Their policy should have been to favor our efforts instead 
of disparaging them ; to augur good rather than ill results. If, by their 
ill-disguised antipathy, a favorable issue should prove to have been delayed 
or partially impaired, they have themselves to thank, not us, for the evil 
consequences. 

There seems to be confidence in the success of confusion, in my belief, as 
little founded in justice as any of the preceding calculations of these in- 
fatuated men. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretory of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 281.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 26, 1862. 

Sir : It is my painful duty to bring, through you, to the notice of the 
British government facts in relation to the port of Nassau, a possession 
of her Britannic Majesty near the southern extremity of the United States, 
which are believed to be unquestionable. From the commencement of the 
present rebellion in this country, and especially since the establishment of 
the blockade, that port has been used as a place of deposit by the insur- 
gents for munitions of war sent thither for their use by their agents and 
sympathizers in England. Sometimes the vessels in which they were car- 
ried thither have attempted to evade the blockade, and in a few instances 
may have succeeded. The main object in the choice of the site, however, 
seems to have been the facility with which contraband of war, transhipped 
to small schooners and similar vessels with little draft of water, might, in 
darkness, run into inlets on the southern coast of the island too shallow 
to allow them to be pursued by such vessels-of-war as can safely be used 
in enforcing the blockade. 

Recently, however, a gunboat called the Oreto, built in England for the 
service of the insurgents, with ports and bolts for twenty guns, and other 
equipments to correspond, arrived at Nassau. The facts in regard to her 
having come to the knowledge of the United States consul, he made a pro- 
test upon the subject, and she was seized by the authorities. She was, 
however, released immediately after the arrival at Nassau, on the 8th 
instant, of Captain Semmes, late commander of the pirate Sumter, and the 
consul informed this department that she was about to start on a privateer- 
ing cruise. He has also represented that there were then in that port 
eleven large British steamers laden with contraband of war for the insur- 
gents in this country. t 

The release by the authorities at Nassau of the Oreto, under the circum- 
stances mentioned, seems to be particularly at variance with her Britannic 
Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, and I am commanded by the President 
to protest against it, and to ask the consideration of her Majesty's govern- 
ment upon the proceeding as one calculated to alarm the government and 
people of the United States. I am also directed to ask the like considera- 
tion of her Majesty's government upon the manner in which the island 



120 

has been used as a deposit for arms and munitions of war intended for the 
insurgents in the United States. 

You are charged with the duty of laying this subject before the British 
government. The legislative and executive authority of the United States 
having been exerted towards preventing similar proceedings by persons 
within our jurisdiction during the insurrection in Canada in 1831, we may 
claim on this ground at least a reciprocity from the British government. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyo., fyc, Sfc. 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 
[Extracts.] 



No. 282.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 27, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of June 12 (No. 112) has been received. * * * 

I have also communicated to the Secretary of the Navy the valuable facts 
which it presents concerning the effect in Europe of the success of the 
blockading squadron in capturing vessels engaged in supplying the insur- 
gents with contraband material of war, and also your important suggestions 
upon that subject. 

Since I last discussed the military situation no event palpably affecting 
it has occurred. Our military and naval forces at Charleston were kept at 
figures only necessary to aid in maintaining the blockade while conflict has 
been challenged at some important strategic points. We learn that our 
generals, perhaps too impulsive, have, without instructions, made an attack 
and have been repulsed at Charleston. While the affair may serve to en- 
courage the languishing hopes of the insurgents, it no more than Jackson's 
late raid in the Shenandoah valley affects the actual progress of the war. 
The operations against Richmond continue to go on to the satisfaction of 
the military department. 

Through many difficulties the work of pacification and revival of com- 
merce at New Orleans and at Memphis is successfully advancing. The 
destruction of cotton by the insurgents seems to have come to a pause, and 
considerable shipments of that staple are coming from Memphis and Nash- 
ville. The Secretary of the Treasury is advised that large quantities of 
sugar are coming from New Orleans. 

With the President's permission, I have interposed between Major General 
Butler and several foreign consuls to save possible complaints and prevent 
unnecessary complications from arising there at a juncture so important, 
and even so critical. These matters have been harmoniously arranged, as 
far as possible, here, with the representatives of those concerned, so as to 
relieve yourself and other ministers in Europe. 

I have carefully considered the information you give us concerning specu- 
lations and schemes entertained in London and Paris about what is there 
called mediation by one or more powers on that continent in our affairs. 

Moreover, I have not neglected to collate this information with the remarks 
made by British ministers and statesmen, and by the influential partisan 
British press, although I am not accustomed to draw such remarks into this 
correspondence. 

I notice with pleasure that Earl Russell spoke reassuringly to you in a 
late conversation to the effect that no change of counsels had been adopted, 



121 

and certainly the statements made by himself and Lord Palmerston in Par- 
liament are sufficiently decisive on that subject. Moreover, notwithstanding- 
all sinister rumors, the President is satisfied that the French government 
has at present no design or purpose of changing its attitude for one that 
would give any new embarrassment to the United States. 

For the rest I may say that if anything could be contrived to warm to 
an intenser heat the fires of the national patriotism beyond the events occur- 
ring in our own country every day, it would be these perpetual demonstra- 
tions of wishes in Europe for the dissolution of the American Union. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

F. W. SEWARD. 

Acting Secretary. 
Chaeles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. F. W. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 284.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 30, 1862. 

Sir: In the absence of the Secretary of State, I transmit to you a resume' 
of the military situation according to the advices last received. In regard 
to other subjects, left to be treated of by him upon his return to the capital, 
he will communicate with you by the steamer of next week. 

The reports from the army near Richmond concerning the events of the past 
few days are somewhat imperfect, owing to a temporary interruption of 
telegraphic communication. 

General McClellan, at the commencement of his operations in the vicinity 
of Richmond, used for his supplies and communications the line formed by 
the York and Pamunkey rivers, and the railroad from the point where it 
crosses the latter stream at White House to his camps on the Chickahominy. 
At the period when this line was adopted the James river had not yet been 
opened by our gunboats. 

In carrying out his plan of operations against Richmond, General Mc- 
Clellan has been, as rapidly as practicable, transferring the greater portion of 
his force to the south side of the Chickahominy. This, on the one hand, left 
his line of communication by way of the White House more or less exposed, 
but, on the other, brought him nearer to the James river, and enabled him to 
open a n e w line of communication there. On Thursday and Friday of last week, 
not unexpectedly to him, the enemy assailed the force which still occupied 
the north side of the Chickahominy, thus precipitating the movement above 
described as in progress. A severe engagement ensued, with considerable 
loss of life, but little or none of material. He succeeded, however, in com- 
pleting the transfer of his troops and supplies to the south side of the 
Chickahominy and in opening communication with our fleet on James river. 
His position now, therefore, as compared with his previous one, is advanced 
nearer to Richmond, and covers ground hitherto held by the enemy, and he 
has exchanged one main line of communication for another. 

From the west all accounts are satisfactory. The power of the enemy to 
attempt offensive demonstrations of any magnitude is practically destroyed. 
The fortifications at Vicksburg are the only obstacles remaining to our com- 
plete control of the navigation of the Mississippi river, and in view of the 
pi'eparations now making no doubt is entertained of their early reduction. 
The loyal sentiment is becoming gradually developed in the regions occu- 
pied by the troops of the United States. Numbers of persons are daily 



122 

abandoning the insurgents and returning to their loyalty to the government, 
some attesting their sincerity, not merely by taking the oath of allegiance, 
but by proffering their military service in the armies of the Union. 
I am, sir, your very obedient servant, 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, §c. 



F. W. SEWARD, 

Acting Secretary. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 182.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 3, 1862. 

Sir: I take advantage of the absence of any despatches this week which 
call for reply to give you an account of a conversation which I had with an 
unofficial person last Saturday morning at his request. 

He began by alluding to the excitement taking place in the cotton market, 
and the sudden increase of the demand growing out of a conviction that 
the supply was likely soon to fail. The effect of this upon the population of 
the manufacturing region was becoming more and more perceptible. It 
was therefore desirable to ascertain as far as possible what the prospect 
was of obtaining any considerable quantity from the southern States. He 
wished me to tell him what I could from such sources of information as 
were open to me. 

I replied that the supply was, in my opinion, somewhat dependent on the 
progress of the war. So long as there was a formidable power in the field 
which left open the possibility of a maintenance of the rebel authority, 
there was scarcely a likelihood that the timid class of planters, at heart 
well disposed to the Union and not disinclined to convert their cotton into 
money, would take the risk of an open committal. As to the duration of 
the war, it was a matter of opinion, in regard to which he must form his 
own as well as I. Much would depend on the turn it might take before 
Richmond. The pinch was at that point, and it seemed to me that such 
were the necessities of the rebels, some positive result could not be very 
long delayed. 

He said that the case was becoming very grave in Europe. A failure of 
this staple so vitally necessary to the subsistence of a numerous population 
could not take place without the risk of much difficulty. There were symp- 
toms already of a disposition to get up agitation and to give to the discon- 
tent of the distressed operatives a political direction. He then intimated 
quite broadly that the governing power, as well in France as in England, 
was not in a condition to withstand any great severity of pressure from this 
quarter. I understood him as speaking from good sources of information. 
Indeed I can readily conjecture precisely what they are. The result might 
be some joint representation to the government of the United States, the 
nature of which he rather hinted at than described. 

To this I observed that the possibility of such a proceeding had been 
within my contemplation. But I could not help thinking it would only have 
the effect of complicating the embarrassment of the parties that might un- 
dertake it. Thus far the policy of my government had been carefully con- 
servative. Its object to save the country, and especially the madmen of the 
south, from the dangers growing out of a precipitate treatment of the real 
cause of the war — the political abuses of the slaveholding system. But the 



123 

time might come when forbearance would cease to be a virtue, and every 
other consideration would yield to the instinct of self-preservation. The 
government had already been compelled to go so far as to examine and ex- 
plain the possibilities of its action in certain contingencies. I had commu- 
nicated a despatch to Lord Eussell, within a few days, which had, for the 
first time since I had been here, entered into a grave exposition of'its views 
on that subject. Any action of foreign nations like that suggested could 
be viewed only as imparting a moral strength to this dangerous element in 
our social system in America, and therefore requiring a more immediate and 
radical extermination of it. The consequence might be a social convulsion 
in the southern States, which, so far from yielding relief to the necessities of 
Europe, would put an end to all the prospect of obtaining any from that 
quarter for years. I had always thought that the great error of these gov- 
ernments had been in not seeing at the outset that their best interests were 
involved in the earliest possible restoration of the authority of the United 
States. Had they acted in that sense the war would have been at an end 
before this. But their actual policy had done just enough to give a sort of 
moral sanction to resistance, which had kept it dragging along until now. 
And now they were debating the expediency of a course which might, indeed, 
very much aggravate the distresses of all parties, but which, so far as I 
could see, would not end in any attainment of those objects for which it was 
to be professedly undertaken. 

He said that this was his own view, and that he had urged it strongly 
elsewhere. In his opinion, the policy towards America should have been 
different, and the moral support of Europe so far assured to the government 
of the United States as to preclude any hope among the insurgents of pos- 
sible assistance. But all that was over. There had been, from causes which 
he enumerated, a good deal of sympathy entertained for the rebel cause. 
Somebody had said that English people always sided with rebellion. (I 
might have added; but did not, except in cases of their own.) The difficulty 
now was serious. He was still in hopes that at least a half million bales 
might come to relieve the pressure. I said that I saw great cause for be- 
lieving that it would, and the late rapid rise in price would, in my opinion, 
do much to hasten it. At all events, he resumed, the idea had occurred to 
him that some manifestation should be made by the government, he did not 
care in what form, of its consciousness of the nature of this distress among 
foreign nations, and of its desire to aid in relieving it. In short, his opinion 
seemed to be that some rather careful friendly exposition of the whole ques- 
tion, as bearing upon the policy of other countries, might be of use to check 
the direction of popular opinion against us in Europe; for he was not sure 
that most of the nations of Europe would not join in some way or other in 
a representation. He wished me to write thus much to you. 

I promised to report the substance of the conversation, and you have the 
result. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



124 

Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 
[Confidential.] 

No. 281.] Department of State, 

Washington, Jxdy 5, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of June 20 (No. 116) has been received. 

It is a satisfaction to know that a copy of my despatch 260 has been re- 
ceived and read by Earl Russell. The subject it presents is one of moment- 
ous import. It seems as if the extreme advocates of African slavery and 
its most vehement opponents were acting in concert together to precipitate 
a servile war — the former by making the most desperate attempts to over- 
throw the federal Union, the latter by demanding an edict of universal 
emancipation as a lawful and necessary, if not, as they say, the only legiti- 
mate, way of saving the Union. 

I reserve remarks upon the military situation for a day nearer to the de- 
parture of the mail. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, §c, fyc. 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 288.] Department or State, 

Washington, Jxdy 1, 1862. 

Sir : I fear that the press, speaking as it does under the influence of a 
hundred various forms of excitement arising out of the incidents of the last 
ten days, will bewilder, if it does not for the moment confound, our repre- 
sentatives abroad. 

The military situation is, however, clearly intelligible, and ought to be 
satisfactory to the cool and candid judgment of the country. 

From the Mississippi we learn that after a long and vigorous bombard- 
ment of Vicksburg, Commodore Farragut passed the batteries at that place 
from below, and joined himself to the fleet which lay above it. Thus the 
last obstacle of the navigation of the Mississippi has been overcome, and it 
is open to trade once more under the flag of the Union from the headwaters 
of its tributaries near the lakes and Prince Rupert's Land to the Gulf of 
Mexico. 

White river and the Yazoo have been cleared of all hostile armaments. 
We have a rumor that Vicksburg has actually been taken. But the report 
is premature, although we have no doubt but the capture has, before this 
time, occurred. 

The fleet under Commodore Goldsborough has been efficient in seizing and 
bringing into port many British vessels carrying contraband, and insured at 
Lloyd's against the perils of the blockade. So that it may be expected risks 
of this kind will sensibly diminish. On the coast all is safe and well. 

In the west General Halleck is pushing a force from Corinth eastward with- 
out any show of organized resistance to capture Chattanooga, and close the 
only remaining railroad communication between Richmond and the valley of 



125 

the Mississippi. This achievement will effect deliverance of Eastern Tennes- 
see, distinguished for its loyalty, and so crown the pacification of the whole 
region west of the Alleghany mountains, north of Georgia and Alabama, and 
south of the Ohio river. But it is the vicinity of Richmond that has been 
the scene of military events of the intensest interest during the last two 
weeks, and it is that quarter that now chiefly engages the attention of the 
government. 

General McClellan's original design for the capture of Richmond embraced 
a march up the peninsula from Fortress Monroe and Yorktown, supported 
by naval forces on both the York and the James river. The sudden appear- 
ance of the Merrimack, with her terrible power of mischief, obliged him to 
confine his march to the bank of the York river, with the aid of a fleet in 
that river alone. He had, then, the Chickahominy, with its variable flow, 
and its almost impassable swamps, between him and Richmond. The Pa- 
munkey, the chief tributary of the York, afforded him navigation only to the 
White House, where he held his forces, twenty miles from Richmond, with- 
out any other co-operation from our naval force on both rivers there than 
protection they afforded to his rear. A large force that was intended to be 
auxiliary to the army of the Potomac was retained in front of Washington, 
necessarily, as it was thought, with a view to the safety of the capital 
against forces sent to menace it from Richmond. While General McClellan 
was thus obtaining a foothold on the peninsula north of the Chickahominy, 
the insurgents succeeded in obstructing the James river a distance of seven 
miles below Richmond, and in constructing fortifications at Fort Darling, 
up a precipitous elevation on the south bank of the James river, which 
rendered it impossible for the fleet on that river to remove the obstructions 
without the aid of a land force to carry that fort. General McClellan was 
steadily, and, as it seemed, successfully, moving his army across the Chicka- 
hominy to change his base to the James river, below Fort Darling, on 
Wednesday last, when the insurgents concentrated large forces upon what 
was yet the front of the moving column, and a series of battles began which 
filled up seven successive days, at the end of which the general, with his 
army, and substantially all his material, had reached and established himself 
at Harrison's Bar, upon the bank of the James river, in full co-operation with 
the fleet of seventeen gunboats, while the insurgents have not one man-of- 
war. This movement, which was a meditated, prepared one, undoubtedly 
became a retreat when the enemy pressed upon the withdrawing forces. 
The change of base involved a loss of communication for a time between the 
army and the government and the country. During this suspense, which 
lasted seven days, extravagant reports of disasters and losses, and the 
wildest alarm for even the safety of the army itself, obtained currency, and 
oppressed the public mind. At length we have the results so far as they 
affect the military situation. There have been immense losses, but more 
severe on the part of the insurgents than on that of the Union. The efficiency 
of the army of the latter is improved. That of the former, it is believed, is 
even more reduced. Every one of the battles was a repulse of the insur- 
gents, and the two last, which closed the series, were decided victories. 
The army of the Potomac is rapidly receiving reinforcements from several 
sources, while the fleet is thought already equal in effect to an additional 
army. General Pope, having taken command of all the troops in Virginia, 
is pushing them forward from the north to cutoff the railroad communication 
beyond the Rappahannock, and threatens them on the approach from the 
northwest. Within the next thirty days our navy, already large, will 
receive an augmentation of ten new iron-clad vessels, each equal to the 
Monitor. At the same time, the President, upon the invitation of the 



126 

governors of twenty of the thirty-four States, has called out three hundred 
thousand men, a force amply sufficient to save all that has been gained, and 
speedily close the civil strife. 

You will read with interest and admiration General McClellan's modest 
conduct.; his firm and decisive despatches and proclamation. The govern- 
ment and popular bodies who have heretofore been so efficient in filling up 
the armies are akeady in activity, and the prompt success of the call is 
deemed assured. The destruction of human life which has occurred is a sad 
and painful theme. But it brings its compensation in a military and in a 
political view — aspects in which it is now our stern duty toe ontemplate it. 
The delusion that the soldiers of the Union would not fight for it with as 
much courage and resolution as its enemies will fight against it, has been 
one of the chief elements of the insurrection. It has now been effectually 
dispelled. 

Secondly. If, as fatalists argue, a certain quantity of human blood 
must flow to appease the dreadful spirit of faction, and enable a discontented 
people to recover its calmness and its reason, it may be hoped that the 
needful sacrifice has now been made. 

Thirdly. If the representative parties had now to choose whether they 
would have the national army where it is and as it is, or back again where 
it was and as it was, it is not to be doubted that the insurgents would prefer 
to it the position and condition on the Panmnkey, and the friends of the 
Union the one now attained on the bank of the James. 

Fourthly. The insurgents and the world abroad will see that the virtue of 
the people is adequate to the responsibilities which Providence has cast 
upon them. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 290.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 8, 1862. 
Sir: As inquiry may be made of you as to the approbation by this gov- 
ernment of a treaty recently concluded by Mr. Corwin with the government 
of Mexico, by one of the stipulations of which a sum of money was to be 
paid to that government, I have to inform you that the instrument was sub- 
mitted to the Senate, but the Committee on Foreign Relations of that body 
has reported adversely thereon. It is not probable, therefore, that at this 
session at least the Senate will advise and consent to the ratification of the 
treaty. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
' Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc 

[Same to W. L. Dayton, No. 177.] 



127 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 295.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 9, 1862. 

Sir: Mr. Stuart, in a very courteous manner, verbally expressed to me 
the opinion of her Majesty's government, that Major General Butler's order 
concerning- the females in New Orleans who gave offence to the Union sol- 
diers was an improper one in respect to the expressions employed in it, 
whatever constructions might be placed upon them, and their hope, therefore, 
that it might be disapproved. 

I answered him that we must ask his government, in reading that procla- 
mation, to adopt a rule of construction which the British nation had elevated 
to the dignity of a principle and made it the motto of their national arms — 
" Honi soit qui mat y pense." That it was not until a gross construction of 
the order was brought to the knowledge of this government that we saw 
that the proclamation contained un double entendre. That gross meaning 
the government of course rejected, and it regretted that in the haste of com- 
position a phraseology which could be mistaken or perverted had been used. 
I was happy, however, to inform him that all sensibility about the order 
seemed to have passed away, and no complaints were now heard of any 
impropriety of conduct on the part of the ladies of New Orleans. I explained 
also to Mr. Stuart the ground of the sensibility of our army to female dis- 
courtesy. Our soldiers are mainly young American citizens of education 
and respectability. Chivalrous respect to the sex is a national sentiment. 
Hitherto it has been met by gentle and respectful courtesy by those to whom 
the homage is so properly paid. It has not been expected that disloyalty to 
the common government of both parties would be regarded as a plea for a 
change of national manners Happily all classes of citizens easily learn to 
meet the changes which this unhappy civil war brings upon us. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfG., Sfc, SfC. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 293.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 9, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of June 13, (No. 114,) accompanied by Earl Russell's 
final explanation on the case of the Emily St. Pierre, has been received. 

We have been unable here to find the parallel case in the diplomatic cor- 
respondence referred to by you in connexion with this subject, and I reserve 
further remarks upon this case until you shall have been able to send it to 
us or direct our search for it. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC., SfC, fyc. 



128 

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 184.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 9, 1862. 
Sir : I have to acknowledge the reception from the department of 
despatches numbered 274, 275, and 276. 

I likewise forward copies of the correspondence, so far as it has gone, 
touching the preparation of the formidable gunboat at Liverpool for the use 
of the rebels. In accordance with the suggestion in Lord Russell's note of 
the 4th instant, I have directed the vice-consul at Liverpool, in the absence 
of Mr. Dudley, to prepare and send to the collector of customs there such 
further evidence as he may obtain of the true destination of that vessel. At 
the same time I have requested him to send me the same information with 
a view to take professional advice as to the practicability of proceeding 
against it in the courts, and, as a last resource, I have taken the responsi- 
bility of sending for the Tuscarora. Captain Craven has arrived at South- 
ampton, and has been here to see me. I regard the case as so important 
that if the evidence shall prove in any way sufficient to justify the step, I 
shall authorize him to try to intercept her on her way out. This may have 
the effect of taking the vessel off of her present station and far over to the 
United States. I know nothing of the naval arrangements, but I presume 
that the Tuscarora can be replaced by some other ship of less power which 
would equally serve the purpose of the government as a safeguard against 
privateering in these waters. 

I have not yet taken advice in regard to proceedings at law to recover 
the Emily St. Pierre, for the reasons already given. After the experience 
had in the case of the Nashville, I have not the smallest confidence in their 
utility. Should you, however, persevere in your wishes after receiving my 
despatch of the 18th of June (No. 175,) I shall readily comply. So much 
time has already elapsed since the event, that a little more delay will make 
no difference. 

Strange as it may seem, Lord Eussell has written to me to inquire the 
date of the claim made by the British government on that of the United 
States for the restoration of the three vessels rescued from their officers. 
The note of Mr. Liston, advancing the claim, was published in the last Obser- 
ver, a newspaper of Sunday morning It makes a very awkward record. 
The newspapers which previous to its appearance were disposed freely to 
comment on my share of the published correspondence in the case of the 
Emily St. Pierre have since been silent. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, June 23, 1862. 

My Lord: Some time since, it may be recollected by your lordship that I 
felt it my duty to make a representation touching the equipment, from the 
port of Liverpool, of the gunboat Oreto, with the intent to make war upon 



129 

the United States. Notwithstanding the statements returned from the au- 
thorities of that place, with which your lordship favored me in reply, touch- 
ing a different destination of that vessel, I have the strongest reason for 
believing that that vessel went directly to Nassau, and that she has been 
there engaged in completing her armament, provisioning, and crew for the 
object first indicated by me. 

I am now under the painful necessity of apprising your lordship that a 
new and still more powerful war steamer is nearly ready for departure from 
the port of Liverpool on the same errand. This vessel has been built and 
launched from the dock-yard of persons, one of whom is now sitting as a 
member of the House of Commons, and is fitting out for the especial and 
manifest object of carrying on hostilities by sea. It is about to be com- 
manded by one of the insurgent agents, the same who sailed in the Oreto. 
The parties engaged in the enterprise are persons well known at Liverpool 
to be agents and officers of the insurgents in the United States, the nature 
and extent of whose labors are well explained in the copy of an intercepted 
letter of one of them, which I received from my government some days ago, 
and which I had the honor to place in your lordship's hand on Thursday last. 

I now ask permission to transmit, for your consideration, a letter ad- 
dressed to me by the consul of the United States at Liverpool, in confirma- 
tion of the statements here submitted, and to solicit such action as may 
tend either to stop the projected expedition, or to establish the fact that its 
purpose is not inimical to the people of the United States. 

Renewing the assurances of my highest consideration, I have the honor 
to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, fyc., fyc, Sfc. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, June 25, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 
23d instant, calling attention to a steam vessel which you state is now 
fitting out at Liverpool with the intention of carrying on hostilities against 
the government of the United States, and I have to acquaint you that I 
have lost no time in referring the matter to the proper department of her 
Majesty's government. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, §c, fyc. 



RUSSELL. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, July 4, 1862. 

Sir : With reference to my letter of the 25th ultimo, I have the honor to 
enclose a copy of a report from the commissioners of customs respecting the 
vessel which you have been informed is being built at Liverpool for the 
government of the so-styled Confederate States, and, in accordance there- 
with, I would beg leave to suggest that you should instruct the United 
9 



130 

States consul at Liverpool to submit to the collector of customs at that port 
such evidence as he may possess tending to show that his suspicions as to 
the destination of the vessel in question are well founded. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Custom-House, July 1, 1862. 

Your lordships having referred to us the annexed letter from Mr. Ham- 
mond, under secretary of state for foreign affairs, transmitting, by desire of 
Earl Russell, copy of a letter from the United States minister at this court, 
calling attention to a steamer reported to be fitting out at Liverpool as a 
southern privateer, and enclosing copy of a letter from the United States 
cons ul at that port reporting the result of his investigation into the matter, 
and requesting that immediate inquiries may be made respecting this ves- 
sel, and such steps taken in the matter as may be right and proper, we 
report : 

That immediately on the receipt of your lordship's reference we forwarded 
the papers to our collector at Liverpool for his special inquiry and re- 
port, and we learn from his reply that the fitting out of the vessel has not 
escaped the notice of the officers of the revenue, but that as yet nothing has 
transpired concerning her which has appeard to demand a special report. 

We are informed that the officers have at all times free access to the 
building yards of the Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead, where the vessel is 
lying, and that there has been no attempt on the part of her builders to dis- 
guise, what is most apparent, that she is intended for a ship-of-war ; and 
one of the surveyors in the service of this revenue, who had been directed 
by the collector personally to inspect the vessel, has stated that the descrip- 
tion of her in the communication of the United States consul is correct, with 
the exception that her engines are not constructed on the oscillatory princi- 
ple. Her dimensions are as follows: length, 211 feet 6 inches; breadth, 31 
feet 8 inches; depth, 11 feet 8 inches, and her gross tonnage, by the present 
rule of admeasurement, is 682 t 3 ^q tons. The surveyor has further stated 
that she has several powder canisters on board, but as yet neither guns nor 
carriages, and that the curient report in regard to the vessel is that she 
has been built by a foreign government, which is not denied by the Messrs. 
Laird, with whom the surveyor has conferred; but they do not appear dis- 
posed to reply to any questions respecting the destination of the vessel after 
she leaves Liverpool, and the officers have no other reliable source of in- 
formation on that point; and, having referred the matter to our solicitor, he 
has reported his opinion that at present there is not sufficient ground to 
warrant the detention of the vessel or any interference on the part of this 
department, in which report we beg to express our concurrence. And with 
reference to the statement of the United States consul that the evidence he 
has in regard to this vessel being intended for the so-called confederate gov- 
ernment in the southern States is entirely conclusive to his mind, we would 
observe that inasmuch as the officers of customs of Liverpool would not be 
justified in taking any steps against the vessel unless sufficient evidence 
to warrant her detention should be laid before them, the proper course would 
be for the consul to submit such evidence as he possesses to the collector 
at that port, who would thereupon take such measures as the provisions of 
the foreign enlistment act would require; without the production of full and 



131 

sufficient evidence to justify their proceedings, the seizing officers might en- 
tail on themselves and on the government very serious consequence. 

We beg to add that the officers at Liverpool will keep a strict watch on 
the vessel, and that any further information that may be obtained concern- 
ing her will be forthwith reported. 

THOS. F. FREMANTLE. 
GRENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY. 

The Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, July 7, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 
4th instant, covering a copy of the report from the. commissioners of customs, 
respecting a vessel presumed by me to be in course of preparation at Liver- 
pool to carry on hostile operations against the United States. In accord- 
ance with your lordship's suggestion, I shall at once instruct the consul of 
the United States to submit to the collector of customs at that port such 
evidence as he possesses to show that the suspicions he entertained of the 
character of that vessel are well founded. 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, SfC., fyc, SfC. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Wilding. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, July 7, 1862. 

Sir: I transmit herewith a copy of a note received by me from Lord Rus- 
sell, in reply to my representation, founded on Mr. Dudley's letters of the 21st 
of June to me, respecting Mr. Laird's gunboat. In accordance with his lord- 
ship's suggestion, I pray you to furnish to the collector of customs, so soon 
as may be, any evidence which you can readily command in aid of the object 
designated. 

I should be glad likewise to have such evidence made in duplicate, and 
one copy forwarded to me at the same time for possible use in another way 
at this point. 

I have the honor to be, &c, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Henry Wilding, Esq., 

United States Vice- Consul, Liverpool. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 296.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 11, 1862. 

Sir: The treaty between the United States and the republic of New 
Granada, signed on the 12th day of December, 1846, contains a stipulation 
which it will be seen was made not for any special or peculiar interest or 



132 

advantage of the United States, but for the benefit and advantage of all 
nations, and which is in the following* words, contained in the 35th article 
of said treaty: 

"And in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoy- 
ment of these advantages, and as an especial compensation for the said ad- 
vantages, and for the favors they have acquired by the 4th, 5th, and 6th 
articles of this treaty, the United States guarantee positively and effica- 
ciously to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality 
of the before-mentioned isthmus, with the view that the free transit from 
the one to the other sea may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future 
time while this treaty exists; and, in consequence, the United States also 
guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which 
New Granada has and possesses over the said territory." 

On the 26th of June last Mr. P. A. Herran, minister plenipotentiary of the 
Granadian confederation near the government of the United States, trans- 
mitted to this department a note, of which a translation is hereto annexed, 
marked H. 

In this note Mr. Herran gave information that Mosquera, a revolutionary 
chief, who is engaged in subverting the Granadian confederation, had sent 
an armed force to occupy the Isthmus of Panama, which proceeding was 
opposed by an unavailing protest of the governor of Panama, and Mr. Her- 
ran therefore invoked the interposition of this government in accordance 
with the treaty obligation above set forth. 

Simultaneously with the reception of this note of Mr. Herran's, substan- 
tially the same information which it gave was received from our consul 
residing at Panama; and the President therefore instiucted our naval com- 
mander of that port to take care to protect and guarantee, at all hazards 
and at whatever cost, the safety of the railroad transit across the Isthmus 
of Panama. Mr. Herran now insists that, owing to the character of the 
population on the isthmus and the revolutionary condition of that region, 
the security of the transit across the isthmus cannot be adequately insured 
by the presence and activity of a mere naval force, and that the Granadian 
confederation is entitled, therefore, to the special aid of a land force to bo 
sent from the United States, and suggests that it should be made to consist 
of three hundred cavalry. 

This government has no interest in the matter different from that of other 
maritime powers. It is willing to interpose its aid in execution of its treaty 
and for the benefit of all nations. But if it should do so, it would incur 
some hazard of becoming involved in the revolutionary strife which is going 
on in that country. It would also incur danger of misapprehension of its 
objects by other maritime powers if it should act without previous consul- 
tation with them. The revolutionary disturbances existing in that quarter 
are doubtlessly as well known and understood by the governments of 
Great Britain and France as they are by this government, and they are 
probably also well informed of the proceeding of Mosquera, which has 
moved Mr. Herran's application to the President. He desires an understand- 
ing with these two governments upon the subject, and you are therefore 
instructed to submit the matter to Earl Russell, as Mr. Dayton will likewise 
be instructed to confer with Mr. Thouvenel. 

The points to be remembered are, first, whether any proceeding in the 
matter shall be adopted by the United States, with the assent and acquies- 
cence of the British and French governments ? 

Secondly, what should be the force and extent of the aid to be rendered 
to the Granadian confederation ? 

Thirdly, whether these governments will unite with the United States in 
guaranteeing the safety of the transit under the authority of the Granadian 



133 

confederation, or either of these objects, and the form and manner in which 
the parties shall carry out such agreement ? 

I hardly need say that this government is not less anxious to avoid any 
such independent or hasty action in the matter as would seem to indicate a 
desire for exclusive or especial advantages in New Granada than the British 
government can be that we shall abstain from such a course. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyo., SfC, fyc. 

The same, mutatis mutandis, to Mr. Dayton, No. 180. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 185.] Legation of the United States, 

London, -July 11, 1862. ' 

Sir: The late cessation of our progress has had the effect of encouraging 
the hopes of the people here who sympathize with the rebellion. I think 
there can now be little doubt that they constitute much the greater part of 
the active classes of this kingdom. The efforts made by insurgent emmis- 
saries to stimulate the popular discontents have not, however, been thus far 
attended with much effect. A most elaborate attempt of the kind at Black- 
burn, countenanced by a member of Parliament of some influence in the place, 
was signally defeated. Yet it is not to be disguised that the great rise that 
has occurred in the price of cotton will be attended by a diminution of the 
manufacture and a consequent enlargement of unemployed operatives. So 
long as Parliament remains in session, I am inclined to the belief that no 
particular consequences are to be apprehended. But, after the adjournment, 
should things appear to go on adversely with us, I shall not be surprised if 
some occasion be improved to plunge us into difficulty. It is at any rate 
my duty to prepare your mind for every such possibility. In this connexion 
I am constantly forced to observe how eagerly every act in the United States 
is caught up that may by possibility cast odium on the government. In 
this connexion it is not to be denied that General Butler is furnishing a good 
deal of material. Without desiring to express an opinion on the merits of 
his proceedings, I cannot help regretting that they appear at this distance 
to wear an aspect of want of courtesy toward the agents of foreign nations, 
which tends at this precise moment to increase the distrust with which our 
policy is regarded. I cannot help thinking that some form of general 
instructions to military officers holding responsible commands, in regard to 
the regulation of their official language, might tend to put a stop to many 
of the difficulties which have been experienced in the present contest. I 
cannot doubt that the reputation of the country abroad would be materially 
aided by such a measure. 

I learned yesterday, from a credible source, that it is the intention of some 
of the ministers this evening to take new ground on the subject of Amer- 
ica, should Mr. Lindsay decide to press his motion Should such prove to 
be the case, I shall forward a report of the debate to-morrow, by mail, via 
Queens town. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



134 

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 298.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 12, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of June 26 (No. 180) has been submitted to the Presi- 
dent. 

You inform us that the anxiety arising- from the reduction of the supply 
of cotton in Great Britain increases, while it is also very clear that at the 
time when your letter was written the government and people of that coun- 
try had attained a more temperate condition, and were indulging* somewhat 
a more hopeful view of the result of the civil war in this country. 

The events which have occurred at Eichmond have produced so much 
perturbation here that it is hardly to be expected that they will not seriously 
disturb the public mind in Europe. I shall endeavor, by the President's 
direction, to give you the information which, used at your discretion, may 
enable you to deal with this new agitation. 

Since my last despatch no new military event of any significance has 
occurred. We have carefully ascertained the character and the results of 
the recent battles before Eichmond, and have considerod and adopted such 
measures as the new exigencies have seemed to us to require. What I have 
before written to you is in the main confirmed. The seven days' battles 
were accepted by our army upon a compulsory change of base. Our losses 
were large, but much less than the first reports represented. They amount 
to about 12,000 men. The losses of the insurgents were greater. Each 
battle was, in fact, a victory of our army, although the flank movement from 
the field towards the new base gave the whole series the character of a 
retreat. The result is that the new base is a safer one, and the new posi- 
tion an impregnable one. The federal army, with General McClellan, now 
thus safely lodged on the north bank of the James river, twenty-five miles 
below Eichmond, numbers eighty thousand to ninety thousand, and a force 
which is not very much disproportioned to the insurrectionary army which 
occupies that city. The federal army, however, has the co-operation of a 
very large naval force. The federal army in front of this city, adding those 
which will probably be consolidated with it, is nearly equal in numbers. 
This last force is now under command of Major General Pope, who has 
achieved great successes in the western States, and is esteemed an officer of 
great ability. A general military command over all the land forces of the 
United States will be given to Major General Halleck, who will come from 
the western department to this capital. 

SpC a|S SpE Sffi 3|B 3|C 

Great battles are said to demoralize armies; they certainly perplex the 
press, and the press for a time bewilders the people. These effects have 
been seen in the indecision and nervousness of our citizens since the affair 
at Eichmond. But time restores equanimity and fixes popular determina- 
tions, based upon convictions of duty and patriotism. Our recruiting of the 
new levies has begun, and each day it is found easier and more successful. 
At the same time Congress indicates that it will not adjourn until it has 
armed the President with power to call out, at his discretion, any number 
of troops by draft, and to organize the militia of the seas by issuing letters 
of marque and reprisal. The devotion of the people to the Union increases 
in intensity, and the purpose to maintain it at whatever cost or sacrifice is 
now universally and resolutely manifested. 

The disturbance of exchange does not seem to affect the prosperity of the 
country. We now have reduced cotton from its high place in exports; but 
the grain crops, especially in the north and in the west, are immense. 
These, together with our supplies of gold from California, are sufficient to 



135 

sustain the business of the country in its present prosperous commerce. 
Europe will have the benefit of the grain and the gold. How much it is to 
be regretted that all our arguments and persuasions have failed to induce 
the maritime states of that continent to discourage and so to repress an 
insurrection that not only temporarily prevents the exportation of cotton, 
but madly forbids the planting of that staple, and sooner or later disengages 
both planter and laborer from all cultivation whatever. The escape of 
fugitive slaves from the plantations upon the Peninsula between York and 
James rivers during the recent battles was very large, and that one loss, per- 
haps, counterbalances all the advantages, if any, which the insurgents 
have gained. 

I am, sir, vour obedient, servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC., &c, SfO. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 299.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 12, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of June 26 (No. 179) has been received. 

You inform me that Mr. Dudley, our consul at Liverpool, has brought to your 
notice a new and flagrant violation of neutrality which is being attempted 
in some British port, and that you have remonstrated against it with the 
British government, and also have called Captain Craven to Southampton to 
defeat the enterprise. You, however, do not inform me of the name of the 
vessel; her particular character or purpose, or any of the circumstances of 
the case. I have communicated the imperfect information thus received to 
the Navy Department, in the hope that it may be able to render it useful. 

This transaction will furnish you a suitable occasion for informing Earl 
Russell that since the Oreto and other gunboats are being received by the 
insurgents from Europe to renew demonstrations on our national commerce, 
Congress is about to authorize the issue of letters of marque and reprisal, 
and that if we find it necessary to suppress that piracy, we shall bring 
privateers into service for that purpose, and, of course, for that purpose only. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., §c, SfO., fyc. 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 
CIRCULAR. 



Department of State, 

Washington, July 14, 1862. 

Sir: I send you a copy of an important bill which the President this day 
submits to Congress, together with a copy of his message recommending 
the same. We trust that Congress may adopt the bill at once. But how- 
ever that may be, there is no reasonable doubt that the policy involved can- 
not be long in winning the favor of the country, and in assuring the sta- 
bility of the Union. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC, §c, §c. 

[Same to all the ministers of the United States in Europe.] 



136 



Fellow-citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives: 

Herewith is the draft of a bill to compensate any State which may abolish 
slavery within its limits, the passage of which, substantially as presented, 
I respectfully and earnestly recommend. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

July 14, 1862. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the President of the United 
States shall be satisfied that any State shall have lawfully abolished slavery 
within and throughout such State', either immediately or gradually, it shall 
be the duty of the President, assisted by the Secretary of the Treasury, to 
prepare and deliver to such State an amount of six per cent, interest-bear- 
ing bonds of the United States, equal to the aggregate value, at $ per 

head, of all the slaves within such State, as reported by the census of the 
year 1860 ; the whole amount for any one State to be delivered at once if 
the abolishment be immediate, or in equal annual instalments if it be 
gradual ; interest to begin, running on each bond, at the time of its delivery, 
and not before. 

And be it further enacted, That if any State, having so received any such 
bonds, shall at any time afterwards by law reintroduce or tolerate slavery 
within its limits, contrary to the act of abolishment upon which such bonds 
shall have been received, said bonds so received by said State shall at once 
be null and void, in whosesoever hands they may be, and such State shall re- 
fund to the United States all interest which may have been paid on such 
bonds. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 186.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July IT, 1862. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the depart- 
ment numbered from 27 7 to 284, both inclusive, with the single exception 
of No. 281, which has not come to hand. . 

# The despatch No. 284, dated the 30th of June, was of service to me, as 
explaining the reasons of the movements of General McClellan, which 
would otherwise have been enveloped in mystery. But the speed of the 
telegraph now so far outstrips the progress of written communications that 
I had already received intelligence of the events down to the 7th instant, 
which more completely absorbed my attention. The conclusion which I 
draw from the whole is, that General McClellan has been thrown back in his 
work for an indefinite period, and that at the latest date he remained on the 
defensive rather than in the attitude of an assailant. 

It is my duty to state that this impression is by no means the common 
one here. Generally regarded as decisive of the whole struggle, the news 
has had the effect, which you doubtless will have conjectured beforehand, 
of stimulating a manifestation of the feeling which has only been sup- 
pressed under the course of our preceding successes. I think last week I 
wrote to you mentioning the rumor that some demonstration might be made 
in Parliament on Friday night, and promising to send you a report of it 
should it take place. So slight seemed the promise of success at that in- 
stant that it turned out that Mr. Lindsay, the father of the original propo- 



137 

sition upon which debate was to take place, had neglected to put it on th« 
paper, and hence there was no subject to discuss. To remedy this defect, 
Lord Vane Tempest gave notice of a new motion, which contemplated 
nothing less than direct intervention in our quarrel by peaceable means or 
otherwise. Although this gentleman is the son-in-law of the Duke of New- 
castle, his position in the House of Commons is not such as to give rise to 
much anxiety for his demonstration. Such was the state of things on Sat- 
urday and Sunday. But the later news of the present week has very con- 
siderably changed it. 

Yesterday Mr. Lindsay took courage, and announced the resumption of 
his purpose. He first modified his motion so as to embrace both the points 
of recognition and intervention, incorporating into it even the significant 
word " otherwise," borrowed from that of Lord Tempest. To-day I learn 
that he has seen the effect of that course, and has so changed his language 
as to embrace only the idea of mediation in conjunction with other powers, 
and that of pledging Parliament to sustain the ministry in any policy they 
might think proper to pursue. I do not quote the phraseology, because it 
may yet undergo alterations, and you will be sure to see it in its final shape, 
as it will come up for discussion to-morrow night. It is now understood 
that Mr. Lindsay proposes to press his question to a division, and it is 
thought that a sufficient number of members favor it to sustain the inten- 
tion. I do not think it is countenanced by the ministry or by the more in- 
fluential members of the opposition. But it is a good deal nursed by the 
rank and file of the latter, and by a portion of the ministerialists. With 
these explanations you will be able to form your judgment of the prospect 
before us. For the rest I shall take measures to be well informed of the 
precise temper of the House through some person present at the debate, 
and shall endeavor to send you a report of it by the steamer of Saturday. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 187.] Legation of the United States, 

London, Jidy 17, 1862. 

Sir : The Tuscarora is still at Southampton. She has been detained by 
the necessity for some slight repairs. Notes have passed between Lord 
Russell and myself on the subject, copies of which are hereto subjoined. 
The consul at Liverpool has made representations to the collector of the 
customs respecting the vessel not yet named, but undoubtedly fitting out at 
Liverpool to prey upon our commerce, according to the suggestions made by 
Lord Russell in his note in reply to my remonstrance. Unfortunately the 
consul did not affix to this paper the legal form of evidence, which led to its 
rejection. In the meanwhile I have advised him to supply the omission, 
and I learn that he has done so. 

I have likewise, in concert with Mr. Morse, the consul at this place, taken 
measures to obtain advices as to the expediency of proceeding against this 
vessel in another form, agreeably to a suggestion dropped to me some 
time ago by Lord Russell in conversation. As yet I have not learned the 
issue of the consultation. The deposition to be taken by Mr. Dudley may 



138 

fee as necessary in this case as in the other. I have requested duplicates to 
be forwarded to me at once. 

Lastly, I have supplied to Captain Craven all the information I can obtain 
respecting the objects and destination of this vessel, and have advised him 
to take such measures as may, in his opinion, be effective to intercept her 
on her way out. He will probably leave Southampton in a day or two. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

[Enclosures.] 

1. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, July 12, 1862. 

2. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, July 15, 1862. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, July 12, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to bring to your notice that the United States 
screw steamer-of-war Tuscarora has within the last few days arrived at 
Southampton, and that, in answer to inquiries addressed to her commander, 
the authorities at that port have been informed that she is in need of repairs, 
which will occupy at least a fortnight. 

Under these circumstances, I have the honor to suggest that the proper 
course would be that you should apply formally for that indulgence in favor 
of the Tuscarora. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sfc., fyc., §c. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, July 15, 1862. 

My Lord : I pray your lordship's pardon if, by reason of my want of 
acquaintance with the proper mode of proceeding, I have failed to take the 
necessary steps to solicit for Captain Craven, of the United States steamer 
the Tuscarora, permission to make some repairs required by the continued 
service of this vessel since her departure from the United States. In the 
conversation held with Captain Craven touching the matter I did not under- 
stand him to have learned that the application should come from me. 

I presume that the repairs proposed are not of a nature to require much 
detention. I trust, therefore, that her Majesty's government will be pleased 
to grant the privilege to the Tuscarora so far as it may be necessary to 
place that vessel in good order for service at sea. 

Renewing to your lordship the assurance of my highest consideration, I 
have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, fyc., fyc, fyc. 



139 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 188.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 17, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to transmit a copy of my note to Lord Russell in 
relation to the course taken by the harbor-master of Hong Kong towards 
the United States vessel the Saginaw. Copies of the papers enclosed, with 
your despatch (No. 275) of the 23d of June, relating to that subject, accom- 
panied my note. « 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, July 14, 1862. 

My Lord: I am directed to lay before your lordship copies of despatches 
transmitted to me, touching the action of the harbor-master at Hong Kong, 
in relation to the United States steamer Saginaw. There certainly does 
seem to be a difference between the treatment experienced by this vessel 
and that applied to the Sumter in Gibraltar. 

But, apart from this, it is needless to suggest to your lordship that the 
presence of some vessel-of-war in the China seas is almost indispensable to 
the protection of the interests of American commerce in that quarter, or 
that a denial of any of the ordinary rights of maritime powers operates 
with peculiar hardship upon them in this instance. On the other hand, it 
does not appear that any British interest could be seriously affected by the 
admission of such vessels to the enjoyment of them. Thus far experience 
may be said to have shown it to advance the interests of all the western 
powers. Under these circumstances I have been instructed simply to submit 
the facts to the consideration of her Majesty's government. 

Praying your lordship to accept the assurances of my highest considera- 
tion, I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, <&c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 189.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 17, 1862. 

That there has been more or less of communication between the great 
powers on the subject of the present state of America I do not doubt. As 
yet it has not probably run into any distinct form of action, but rather por- 
tends consultation to bring it to that. The interests of the different parties 
being clearly diverse, it is difficult to foresee what may be the issue of such 
counsels. The probabilities rather indicate the possible adoption of some over- 
tures for mediation in a professedly friendly spirit, but rather imposing the 
more burdensome responsibility on the stronger side in case of its refusal to 



140 

listen to them. Should circumstances continue to favor the idea of a pro- 
traction of the war, I am prepared for a demonstration of this kind in some 
form or other before the lapse of much time after the close of the session of 
Parliament. 

The question must naturally arise how such a movement is to be met. 
Of course much would depend upon the precise shape it might take. Sup- 
posing, for an instant, that this should be as free from exception in manner 
as it could be made, and that its spirit were to assume the most benevolent 
aspect possible, the effect would be to concentrate in a degree the moral 
.sense of the civilized nations of Europe in its behalf. Much would then 
seem to depend on the form which the reply would take. 

Without pretending to suggest in advance any ideas respecting the policy 
which a similar proceeding might develop, it has occurred to me as im- 
portant that a marked distinction should be upheld between the objects 
which the government has had in view from the outset of this struggle, and 
those which are imputed to it. Of these last the subjugation of the people 
of the rebellious region is the most generally entertained. Instead of being 
a war for the fuller establishment of free principles, it is construed as one 
of dominion of one part of the people over the other. In other words, the 
actual state of facts is precisely reversed, and the party which started the 
war for the attainment of that latter end is viewed as the one which is itself 
to be subjected. Under these circumstances it seems to me impossible 
longer to avoid an explicit declaration of the true state of the question. I 
have never understood it to be the design or the desire of the people of the 
United States to subjugate their brethren and forever after treat them as 
slaves. But I do understand it to be their determination not to permit them, 
by exercising the right of subjugating a large portion of their own people, 
on that basis, to occupy a position of perpetual danger to themselves. The 
attitude of a slaveholding nation, directed and controlled as it has been and 
would be in the southern States, in bitter hostility to the integiity of the 
Union as a republic based on freedom, could scarcely be tolerated under any 
circumstances, much less if established and upheld by the intervention of 
the most enlightened nations of the world. To guard against such a shock- 
ing result would seem to be the first care of a statesman. It is, then, only 
through the removal of the main obstacle, the continuance of slavery, that 
any prospect of a solution of this question at all honorable to the motives 
of the European powers can be opened up. With that as a fundamental 
condition all other difficulties might possibly be in time removed, and a pa- 
cific termination arrived at. To attain such an object might be, indeed, 
considered an event in the history of the world which would reflect the most 
credit on the parties undertaking it; whilst, on the other hand, to reject 
or evade it would be assuming, in fact, the maintenance of a policy which 
the whole European sentiment of the present century has united to de- 
nounce. 

It is no more than my duty to add that the effect of the news received of 
the events at Richmond during the early part of the month will be to stimu- 
late the activity of the movement all over Europe. It is showing itself 
strongly in private circles here as well as in the newspapers, and it will 
no doubt, before long, unless there should be a marked change for the better 
in America, take some form of public action. It would, then, seem to be 
of material consequence that the government should be prepared to meet 
any possible emergency by a clear line of policy, taking into view all the 
eventualities of the struggle. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



141 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 191.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 18, 1862. 

Sir : I have only time before the closing- of the bag- to transmit the copy 
of a note received last evening" from Lord Eussell on the subject of the 
slave trade treaty. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon William H. Seward, . 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Earl Eussell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, July — , 1862. 

Sir: I beg leave to request that you will submit the following matter for 
the consideration of the cabinet at Washington: 

You are aware that the 6th article of the treaty concluded on the Tth of 
April last between this country and the United States, for the suppression 
of the slave trade, provides that British or American merchant vessels maj- 
be lawfully detained, and sent or brought before the mixed courts of justice, 
if, in their equipment, there should be found any of the things specified in 
the said article as usually forming part of the equipment of slave vessels. 
Among the things which would render a vessel liable to seizux-e may be 
mentioned a larger quantity of water than is requisite, under ordinary cir- 
cumstances, for the consumption of a vessel as a merchant vessel ; an ex- 
traordinary supply of provisions, or a boiler or other cooking apparatus of 
an unusual size, or capable of being made larger than requisite for the use 
of the vessel as a merchant vessel. 

The 7th article of the treaty provides that if any of the things specified 
in the preceding article should be found on board a vessel that may have 
been detained, or should be proved to have been on board during the 
voyage on which she was captured, no compensation for losses or expenses 
consequent upon the detention of such vessel shall in any case be granted, 
even though she should not be condemned by the mixed court of justice. 
But as some of the things specified in article 6, particularly those I have 
mentioned, viz: unusual supplies of water and provisions, and a large cook- 
ing apparatus, may be found on board vessels legally employed on the 
African coast, it becomes important that such vessels should not be put to 
an unnecessary inconvenience or detention. For instance, it may so happen 
that an American vessel engaged in carrying liberated Africans to Liberia 
or any other part of Africa, may, on her voyage to or .from the African 
coast, fall in with a British cruiser, and unless the commander of the British 
vessel were assured that the vessel was engaged on a legal voyage, she 
might suffer detention. 

On the other hand, a British vessel engaged in transporting, or fitted for 
the conveyance of liberated Africans from Sierra Leone, or from St. Helena 
to another British colony, might suffer detention at the hands of the com- 
mander of an American cruiser, unless her commander were assured of the 
legality of the voyage of the British ship. 

With the view, therefore, to provide for the exemption from seizure or 
detention of vessels legally fitted for the conveyance of Africans to or from 



142 

the African coast, it is the intention of her Majesty's government to cause 
British ships so employed to be furnished with a passport or "safe conduct," 
to be signed by one of her Majesty's secretaries of state, by the governor of 
the British colony from which such vessel may have sailed. The passport 
or " safe conduct" will state the name, tonnage, and description of the ves- 
sel, and the name of the commander, and the purpose of her voyage, and 
will be good only for the voyage on which the vessel may be chartered. 

In acquainting your government with the course which her Majesty's 
government propose to pursue in this matter, I beg leave at the same time 
to request that you will have the goodness to suggest that American ves- 
sels which may be legally employed on the African coast, and whose equip- 
ment may render them liable to seizure or detention under the terms of the 
treaty, may, on their part, be furnished with a similar passport or safe con- 
duct, signed by a competent United States authority. Whilst her Majesty's 
government on their part guarantee that British cruisers should not molest 
American vessels provided with such passports, they would, of course, 
require that a similar guarantee should be given on the part of the United 
States government in regard to British vessels. 

I should be glad to be made acquainted with the decision of your govern- 
ment in this matter with as little delay as possible. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

EUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

[Extracts.] 



No. 303.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 18, 1862. 

Sir : The narrative of a conversation held between yourself and 

has been received with much interest by the President. 

You rightly told him that the prospect of the export of cotton depends now 
mainly on the course of the war. But I think you overrated the importance, 
in that respect, of the operations before Richmond. For foreign and of 
course for commercial purposes the Union exists practically unimpaired by 
the safety with which the conspirators as yet hold their treasonable conclave 
in Richmond, at the head of the James river, just as much as the Union 
would, for all practical purposes, exist if this government should remove 
itself from Washington, at the head of the Potomac, to St. Paul, at the head 
of the Mississippi. What cotton has been already prepared for market is 
remaining now in the cotton-producing States. All or nearly all of them 
communicate with the exterior through the Mississippi river, either down- 
ward by New Orleans, or upward through the rivers, canals, lakes, and 
railroads of the north. The Mississippi has already been opened to com- 
merce through its whole length, with the exception of the obstruction at 
Vicksburg, about 200 miles above New Orleans. All the rivers, canals, 
lakes, and railroads before mentioned are free from obstruction ; Vicksburg 
is besieged and must soon fall ; Mobile and Charleston will fall soon there- 
after. The work of pacification in the region concerned is going on as 
successfully as could be expected. You hear of occasional guerilla raids, 
but these are only the after pangs of a revolution in that quarter which has 



- 143 

proved an abortion. The forces employed there have proved abundant for 
the purposes of the government ; they have not been diminished, and they 
will be increased. 

Want is pressing upon the owners and holders of the cotton, and want, 
daily increasing, will not be long in overcoming even faction and treason. 

All our information leads to the belief that the cotton which has been 
destroyed by the insurgent authorities has been destroyed, not by its pro- 
ducers or holders, but by the armed forces of the insurgents ; that the 
quantity so destroyed has been greatly exaggerated, and that the work of 
destruction has ceased. If, therefore, the military condition of the region 
concerned shall be improved continually as we expect, or even if it remain 
unchanged for the time, all the cotton which has been gathered will, in the 
course of a few months, under the protection of the government, find its 
way to the markets where it is so much wanted. I do not doubt that the 
quantity that can be exported exceeds half a million of bales ; but upon 
this subject I write with caution, because a long period of non-intercourse 

has left us without special information from the Gulf States. Mr. , 

a very intelligent loyal citizen of New Orleans, intimately acquainted with 
its commerce and with the commerce of the southern States, was despatched 
by this department to that city on the 24th of June to obtain and report all 
the information possible on the general subject of the cotton supply, and the 
prospect of its coming forward. His first communication is daily expected, 
and you shall have the results of his researches so soon as they shall have 
been received.. 

I may state, moreover, that we are meditating a further relaxation of the 
rigor of our blockade, so as to favor, in a special way, the export of cotton. 
I shall probably write more fully upon this point in my next despatches to 
Europe. 

So much may be said on the subject of Mr. 's conversation from the 

position which is held by the government of the United States ; but the 
export of cotton to Europe depends, in no inconsiderable degree, on the 
action of the governments and peoples of that continent. 

All our efforts are measurably counteracted by the attitude of those gov- 
ernments which recognize our internal enemy as a lawful public belligerent, 
and thereby are understood as encouraging it to hope for recognition 
and intervention. Those efforts are counteracted also by an illicit British 
trade which supplies that enemy with ships-of-war, arms, ammunition, sup- 
plies, and credit. And still more are they counteracted by the now conceded 
political sympathies of European masses and classes, who improve the civil 
war in this country and the distresses it works to the manufacturing and 
commercial interests of their own countries to raise against us there a pre- 
judice which has the moral effect of sustaining and prolonging that civil 
war. 

It must not be forgotten that the mass of the American people, including 
as well disloyal as loyal citizens, receive their information concerning the 
relations between our country and foreign nations, not from the careful, 
measured, and deliberate diplomatic communications with which you and I 
are familiar, but from the language of the press which on either side of the 
Atlantic assumes to interpret those relations, and interprets them according 
to its own interests, impulses, and prejudices. Hence it has happened that 
in this country the public mind, feeding on the suggestions of the press, is 
rapidly accepting a conclusion that certain European powers, among which 
are Great Britain and France, are meditating and preparing an intervention, 
under the idea that they can oblige the United States to consent to a disso- 
lution of the Union to avoid foreign conflict, and if that fail, then that 



144 * 

through such conflict they will open a passage for the free export of cotton 
from the insurgent States. 

It is easy to see how a European statesman, surrounded by the political 
influences of the governing classes, and listening naturally and loyally to 
the complaints of masses of men thrown out, or apprehensive of being thrown 
out, of their needful and customary employment, and at the same time look- 
ing no further than this, can suppose that such an appeal as is thus proposed 
may be made harmlessly, if not with some good effect. But the same states- 
man would probably take a very different view of the subject if he should 
extend his survey and take cognizance of the fact that the people of the 
United States have a sensibility on the subject of their sovereignty and na- 
tional honor that no domestic disputes nor any foreign dangers have ever 
impaired; that they already feel that the foreign states concerned have 
acted injuriously towards them in a crisis when they expected respect and 
toleration, if not generous sympathy. Under these circumstances, the 
limits where the magnanimity of the United States in listening to the in- 
terested counsels of Europe must end are easily discerned. I do not 
indicate those limits. It is enough for me to say that this people have 
already risen above the level of the motives which would prompt the 
supposed appeal in Europe, and to which this appeal must be addressed 
here. They are conscious that they are contending not about stocks 
or tariffs, or treasure or profits, or gains or losses, or prestige or power, 
but for sovereignty, for self-government, for freedom, and for humanity. 
If there be one American citizen, not already committed and sworn to 
the betrayal of his country, who would listen favorably to any foreign 
persuasion on these great questions, I have yet to see him and to learn his 
name. If European states want to shorten this war, as we know they ought 
and must, their course is clear and easy. Let them respect the authority 
and the national rights of the American people. The correspondence which 
has just taken place between the President of the United States and the 
representatives of the so-called border States is herewith transmitted. It 
will show you that the revolution is already successfully arrested by the 
separation of those States from the company of the so-called Confederate 
States. It needs only any real or seeming danger of foreign intervention 
in the conflict to revive and renew devotion to the Union, even with the 
sacrifice of slavery, throughout the whole United States. Europe will not 
intervene or appeal to us except for cotton. Cotton, perhaps, could be fur- 
nished in answer to such an appeal only by saving the existence of slavery 
here to produce it. Intervention will end the exportation of cotton by ex- 
tinguishing the slavery which produces it. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 306.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 24, 1862. 

Sir: You are aware of the use which has been made of the port of Nas- 
sau by the insurgents and their friends as a deposit for vessels and mer- 
chandise for the purpose of breaking the blockade. Some of the residents 
there, notoriously engaged in this business, recently complained, through Mr. 



145 

Stuart, the British charge" d'affaires here, of certain restrictions which the 
Treasury Department authorized to be placed upon the transhipment of 
merchandise at New York from steamers from England to vessels for 
Nassau. 

Explanations have been requested upon the subject, and I now enclose a 
copy of a letter of the 22d instant from the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
of its accompaniments, which will enable you to point out the necessity for 
the restrictions adverted to, should inquiry be made of you on that subject ; 
and you may even invite that inquiry. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Mr. Chase to Mr. Seward. 



Treasury Department, July 22, 1862. 

Sir: The communication of Mr. Stuart, British charge d'affaires, relative to 
supposed unauthorized restrictions upon trade between New York and Nassau, 
having been referred for explanations to the collector of customs at New York, 
that officer has reported in relation thereto. 

I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of his communication, together 
with a copy of a letter from the United States consul at Nassau to the collector. 
The paper of Mr. Stuart is also herewith returned. 
I have the honor to be, 

S. P. CHASE, 
Secretary of the Treasury. 
Hon. William H. Seward. 



Mr. Barney to Mr. Chase. 

Custom-House, New York, 

Collector's Office, July 18, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th 
instant, enclosing" copy of communication of the acting British consul at New 
York to the Hon. Wm. Stuart, the British charge d'affaires at Washington, to- 
gether with a letter from Mr. Stuart to the honorable the Secretary of $tate of 
the United States, and papers explanatory of both documents, relative to sup- 
posed unauthorized restrictions upon trade between New York and Nassau, N. P. 

In relation to the matter of fact, and the opinions expressed thereupon in these 
documents, I have to report that the trade carried on between this port and 
Nassau in articles to be shipped thence directly to places and persons in the 

10 



146 

Confederate States is of a magnitude only equalled by the barefaced notoriety 
of the transactions; and it will be observed that the fixed fact of the object of 
this trade is not denied by the high official functionaries who complain of restric- 
tions being put thereon by the authorities of the United States. 

I have further to report that in each of the several cases set forth in the letter 
of the British consul the articles refused to be cleared were either contraband 
of war, or their shippers refused to give a bond that they should not be appro- 
priated to aid and comfort the rebels of the Confederated States. 
• The agent of Mr. Cunard refused to give this bond; so did all the other par- 
ties for whose goods a clearance was refused, as complained of by the consul. 

It is worthy of remark that, just in the same ratio as it is alleged by the 
shippers to be absurd to suppose that such and such articles could be intended 
for the use of the rebels, is the facility and impunity increased with which the 
bond may be given. 

In the case of the search of the schooner William H. Clear, the proceeding of 
the officers of the customs was founded upon information furnished by the police 
department of this city, and upon the presence on board, as a passenger, of the 
captain of a captured blockade-breaking British vessel. Considerable excite- 
ment naturally prevailed amongst all parties during the search, and it is alto- 
gether fair to presume that the offensive language which the captain refers to in 
his protest was an error and a fault on both sides. 

I transmit to you herewith a letter just received from the United States con- 
sul at Nassau. The evils detailed therein, it would seem, can only be remedied 
by the non-intercourse which the exaction of the objectionable bonds will in 
most instances produce. It will be observed that one of the names mentioned 
by the consul, viz: John C. Rahming, is the party to whom several of the letters 
forwarded to you in mine of the 12th instant are addressed. 

The papers enclosed in your letter are herewith returned. 
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

HIRAM BARNEY, Collector. 

Hon. S. P. Chase, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



Mr. Whiting to Mr. Barney. 

United States Consulate, 

Nassau, N. P., July 6, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to inform you of the clearance at this port, to-day, 
of the British schooner Time, Saroyer, master, for New York. 

This vessel belongs to Henry Adderly & Co., the actual agents of the rebel 
States, and she has discharged her two last cargoes from New York directly 
into the^secession steamers engaged in running the southern blockade. 

She came from New York about six weeks since, and put her cargo of coal 
into secession steamers, and some days since she discharged her whole cargo of 
provisions directly into the steamer Cecile, which sailed for Charleston the 
next day, but was fortunately totally wrecked at Abaco on the 14th ultimo. 

I append the names of Nassau merchants most largely and directly engaged 
in contraband trade with the southern ports, as well as being most openly abusive 
of the Union and the north, viz: Henry Adderly & Co., Henry Landers & Son, 



147 

J. S. George, John 0. Rahming & Co., 0. R. Perfsall, I. J. Turtle, Alexander 
Johnson. 

I particularize those who omit no opportunity of sending supplies of arms, 
munitions of war, and medicines to the rebels. 
I have the honor to he, sir, &c, 

SAM. WHITING, 

United States Consul, 
Hon. Hiram Barney, 

Collector of the port, New York. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 194.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 24, 1862. 
Sir: In answer to your despatch numbered 289, of the 5th of July, I 
now transmit copies of certain notes which have passed between the foreign 
office and this legation on the subject referred to. The printed portion of the 
correspondence is to be found in the third volume of the State Papers relat- 
ing to foreign affairs, printed by Gales & Seaton, pages 576 to 581. 
I have the honor to be, sir, vour obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon.WiLLiAM H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

[Enclosures.] 

1. Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, July 4, 1862, for the date of the British 
demand for restoration of recaptured vessels. 

2. Mr. Adams in reply to Lord Russell, July 1, 1862. 

3. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, July 21, 1862, with copy of Lord Gren- 
ville's note, of October 21, 1799, to Mr. Liston, and Mr. Pickering's note of 
May 3, 1800. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, July 4, 1862. 

Sir: I should feel much obliged, if you have the means of doing so, if you 
would inform me of the exact date at which a demand, similar to that made 
by you in tlae case of the Emily St. Pierre, was made by the British govern- 
ment upon that of the United States for the restoration of a vessel seized 
by a British cruiser, but afterwards recaptured by the crew. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq. 



148 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 

Legation of the United States, 

London, July 7, 1862. 
My Lord: In answer to your lordship's note of the 4th instant, requesting 
me to inform you of the exact date at which a demand, similar to that made 
by me in the case of the Emily St. Pierre, was made by the British govern- 
ment upon that of the United States, I have the honor to transmit a copy 
of the note of Mr. Liston to Mr. Pickering, dated at Philadelphia, February 
2, 1 800, as I find it printed in the 3d volume of the State Papers of the 
United States relating to foreign affairs. 

I have the honor to be, mv lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Earl Russell. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, July 21, 1862. 

Sir: I beg to thank you for your letter of the 7th instant, communicating 
to me a copy, as printed in the 3d volume of the United States State Papers, 
of the note from Mr. Liston to Mr. Pickering, of the 2d of February, 1800, 
applying for the restoration of the three vessels: Experience, Lucy, and 
Fair Columbian. 

I have now the honor to enclose a copy of the instruction from Lord Gren- 
ville, under which Mr. Liston acted, and a copy of the note which was 
received from Mr. Pickering in reply. No law officer's opinion has been 
found, neither do there appear to have been any subsequent proceedings on 
the part of the British government. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq. 



No. 14.] Downing Street, October 21, 1799. 

Sir: I send you enclosed the copy of a letter which I have received from 
the lords commissioners of the admiralty, together with the papers to which 
it refers; and I have to signify to you his Majesty's pleasure that if the ves- 
sel mentioned in them, {the brig Experience,) should be brought into any port 
of the United States, you make a formal demand that she be immediately 
delivered up to you, together with the deserters and seamen who rescued 
her out of the possession of the prize master, in order that they may be 
sent to Jamaica, or to some other of his Majesty's colonies, to be there 
dealt with agreeably to the law of nations. 

Mr. Liston. 



149 



The Secretary of Stite to Mr. Liston. 

Department of State, 

Philadelphia, May 3, 1800. 

Sir: In reference to your letter of the 2d February last, I soon after took 
occasion to intimate to you what appeared to be the President's way of 
thinking on the subject. I have now the honor to state to you that while, 
by the law of nations, the right of a belligerent power to capture and de- 
tain the. merchant vessels of neutrals, on just suspicion of having on board 
enemy's property, or of carrying to such enemy any of the articles which 
are contraband of war, is unquestionable, no precedent is recollected, nor 
does any reason occur which should require the neutral to exert its power 
in aid of the right of the belligerent nation in such captures and detentions. 
It is conceived that, after warning its' citizens or subjects of the legal con- 
sequences of carrying enemy's property or contraband goods, nothing can 
be demanded of the sovereign of the neutral nation but to remain passive. 
If, however, in the present case, the British captors of the brigantine Expe- 
rience, Hewit, master; the ship Lucy, James Conolly, master, and the brig- 
antine^Fair Columbia, Edward Carey, master, have any right to the posses- 
sion of those American vessels or their cargoes, in consequence of their 
capture and detention, but which you state to have been rescued by their 
masters from the captors, and carried into ports of the United States, the 
question is of a nature cognizable before the tribunals of justice, which are 
opened to hear the captors' complaints; and the proper officer will execute 
their decrees. 

You suggest that these rescues are an infringement of the law of nations. 
Permit me to assure you that any arguments which you shall offer to that 
point will receive a just attention. 

With regard to the British seamen and deserters who have assisted in 
the rescues, with great truth I am authorized to assure you that the govern- 
ment have.no desire to retain them; but besides that the many months 
elapsed since those events, and the consequent dispersion of the men, would 
probably render their delivery impracticable, it is not known to be author- 
ized by any law. This has brought into view your project of stipulations 
for the mutual delivery of deserters, whether seamen or soldiers; and I have 
now the honor to enclose a counter project by which you will see the objec- 
tions which have occurred to your propositions. The President has been 
pleased to direct and empower me to negotiate with you on this subject, and 
it will afford him great pleasure if we can make a satisfactory arrange- 
ment. 

I have the honor to be, &c, 

TIMOTHY PICKERING. 

Eobert Liston, Esq. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 196.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 25, 1862. 

Sir: Since the date of my despatch (No. 18?) of the 11th of July, I have 
to report that I received from Mr. Collier so decided an opinion in regard to 
the illegality of the proceedings at Liverpool, that I directed Mr. Dudley to 
proceed with the utmost vigor in the preparation of the necessary deposi- 



150 

tions to place before the collector of customs at Liverpool. I authorized 
him to act under professional advice, so that no mere omission of form could 
be made to avail against us. No time has been lost in getting up the pa- 
pers and in submitting them in the proper quarter. For two days Mr. Dud- 
ley and his adviser, Mr. Squarry, have been in constant communication with 
me here, and all the measures taken by them have been sanctioned by me. 
I am sorry to say that although the second opinion of Mr. Collier, based 
upon the depositions themselves, is so unequivocal, I have reason to believe 
that they are not likely to be more effective to secure the detention of the 
ship by the collector than any former action. 

Not to omit any step that could be imagined likely to avail, I have trans- 
mitted copies of all the papers to Lord Russell, with a request for action 
on the subject in his department. I now send copies of the same, with the 
exception of the affidavits, which Mr. Dudley will probably send, for your 
consideration. As yet I have no answer from Lord Russell. I am not san- 
guine of success, but it seems to me that the action taken is essential to 
complete the record. I have authorized Mr. Dudley and Mr. Morse to incur 
some liabilities in the process, which I hope will not be regarded as ill-judged. 
The Tuscarora has not yet left Southampton. I shall give Captain Craven 
directions to intercept the vessel, if possible, should she be permitted to 
depart. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

[Enclosures.] 

1. Opinion of R. P. Collier, esq., July 16, 1862. 

2. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, July 22, 1862. 

3. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, July 24, 1862. 

4. Opinion of R. P. Collier, esq., July 23, 1862. 

5. Mr. Squarry to Mr. Adams, July 23, 1862. 

6. Same to Board of Customs, July 23, 1862. 
1. Same to Mr. Adams, July 25, 1862. 



No. 1. 
Opinion of R. P. Collier. 



The accompanying copy of a statement, submitted by the American consul 
in Liverpool to her Majesty's collector of customs there, will furnish all the 
information which has at present been obtained relative to the fitting out of 
a vessel intended to be used as a privateer for the purposes of the Con- 
federate States of America. It is believed that the vessel is now very nearly 
ready. 

The American government are desirous of taking immediate steps, under 
the foreign enlistment act, 59 Geo. Ill, cap. 69, to seize the ship and get her 
condemned. 

Mr. Collier, Queen's counsel, is requested to advise as to the proper course 
of proceeding under the circumstances. 



151 



Western Circuit, Winchester, July 16, 1862. 

I think the evidence almost conclusive that the vessel in question is being 
fitted out by the Messrs. Laird as a privateer for the use of the confederate 
government, in contravention of the provisions of the foreign enlistment act, 
59 Geo. Ill, cap. 69. 

As the matter is represented to me to be urgent, T advise that the prin- 
cipal officer of the customs at Liverpool be immediately applied to, under 59 
Geo. Ill, cap. 69— "7, to exercise the powers conferred upon him by that sec- 
tion to seize the vessel, with a view to her condemnation, an indemnity 
being given to him if he requires it. It would be proper at the same time 
to lay a statement of the fact before the secretary of state for foreign affairs, 
coupled with a request that her Majesty's government would direct the vessel 
to be seized, or ratify her seizure if it has been made. 

If the matter were not urgent I should advise no other steps being 
taken until it was known whether or not the government thought fit to 
interfere ; but inasmuch as the government might not unreasonably take 
some little time to determine what course to pursue, during which time the 
vessel might escape, I advise the more prompt remedy. 

R. P. COLLIER. 



No. 2. 
Mr. Adams to Earl Bussell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, July 22, 1862 

My Lord: I have the honor to transmit copies of six depositions taken at 
Liverpool, tending to establish the character and destination of the vessel to 
which I called your lordship's attention in my note of the 23d of June last. 
The originals of these papers have already been submitted to the collector 
of the customs at that port, in accordance with the suggestions made in 
your lordship's note to me of the 4th of July, as the basis of an application 
to him to act under the powers conferred by the enlistment act. But I feel 
it to be my duty further to communicate the facts as there alleged to her 
Majesty's government, and to request that such further proceedings may be 
had as may carry into full effect the determination which I doubt not' it ever 
entertained to prevent by all lawful means the fitting out of hostile expe- 
ditions against the government of a country with which it is at peace. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your lordship the assurance 
of my highest consideration, and am, my lord, j 7 our most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Hon. Earl Russell, dec, dec, &c. 



No. 3. 

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 

Legation of the United States, 

London, July 24, 1862. 

My Lord : In order that I inay complete the evidence in the case of the 
vessel now fitting out at Liverpool, I have the honor to submit to your lord- 
ship's consideration the copies of two more depositions taken respecting that 
subject. 



152 

In the view which I have taken of this extraordinary proceeding as a 
violation of the enlistment act, I am happy to find myself sustained by the 
opinion of an eminent lawyer of Great Britain, a copy of which I do myself 
the honor likewise to transmit. 

Renewing to your lordship the assurances of my highest consideration, I 
have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Hon. Earl Russell, fyc, Sfo., fyo. 



No. 4. 
Opinion of R. P. Collier. 

CASE. 



July 23, 1862. 

You will receive herewith copies of the following affidavits in reference 
to a gunboat known as No. 290, which was built by Messrs. Laird & Co. at 
Birkenhead, as it is believed for the Confederate States of America, and 
which is now lying ready for sea in all respects in the Birkenhead docks. 

No. 1. Affirmation of T. H. Dudley. 

No. 2. Affidavit of I. DeCosta. 

No. 3. Affidavit of M. Maguire. 

No. 4. Affidavit of Hy. Wilding and M. Maguire. 

No. 5. Affidavit of A. S. Clare. 

No. 6. Affidavit of Win. Passmore. 

No. 7. Affidavit of Edward Roberts. 

No. 8. Affidavit of Robt. John Taylor. 

An application has been made, on the affidavits Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, to 
the collector of customs at Liverpool, to detain the vessel under the pro- 
visions of the act 59 Geo. Ill, cap. 69, but under the advice of the solicitors 
to the customs the board have declined to sanction the detention of the 
vessel. 

You are requested to advise the consul for the United States at Liverpool 
whether the affidavits now submitted to you disclose facts which would 
justify the collector of customs in detaining the vessel under the act in 
question.' 

OPINION. 

Temple, July 23, 1862. 

I have perused the above affidavits, and I am of opinion that the collector 
of customs would be justified in detaining the vessel. Indeed, I should 
think it is duty to detain her, and that if, after the application which has 
been made to him, supported by the evidence which has been laid before me, 
he allows the vessel to leave Liverpool, he will incur a heavy responsibility — 
a responsibility of which the board of customs, under whose direction he 
appears to be acting, must take their share. 

It appears difficult to make out a stronger case of infringement of the 
foreign enlistment act, which, if not enforced on this occasion, is little better 
than a dead letter. 

It well deserves consideration whether, if the vessel be allowed to escape, 
the federal government would not have serious grounds of remonstrance. 

R. P. COLLIER. 



153 

No. 5. 

Mr. Squarry to Mr. Adams. 

Tavistock Hotel, Covent Garden, 

London, W. C, July 23, 1862. 
Sir: I beg to inform you that I saw Mr. Layard at the foreign office after 
leaving you this afternoon, and ascertained from him that the papers for- 
warded by you in reference to the gunboat No. 290 were submitted yesterday 
to the law officers of the crown for their opinion. The opinion had not, up 
to the time of my seeing Mr. Layard, been received, but he promised, on my 
representation of the extreme urgency of the case, to send for it at once. 
Mr. Layard was not disposed to discuss the matter, nor did he read Mr. 
Collier's opinion. 

I now enclose a copy of the case with Mr. Collier's opinion, and a copy of 
the letter which I have addressed this afternoon to the secretary of the 
board of customs. 

I have the honor to be, &c, 

A. F. SQUARRY. 
His Excellency The American Minister, 

5 Portland Place. 



No. 6. 

Mr. Squarry to Board of Customs. 

Tavistock Hotel, Covent Garden, 

London, July 23, 1862. 

Sir: Referring to an application which I made on behalf of the United 
States government, under the instructions of their consul at Liverpool, to 
the collector of customs at Liverpool, on Monday last, for the detention, 
under the provisions of the act 59 Geo. Ill, cap. 69, of a steam gunboat, 
built by Messrs. Laird & Co., at Birkenhead, and which, there is no doubt, 
is intended for the Confederate States, to be used as a vessel-of-war against 
the United States government, I beg now to enclose two affidavits which 
reached me this morning from Liverpool, one made by Robert John Taylor, 
and the other by Edward Roberts, and which furnish additional proof of the 
character of the vessel in question. 

I also enclose a case which has been submitted to Mr. Collier, Q. C, with 
his opinion thereon. 

I learned this morning from Mr. O'Dowd that instructions were forwarded 
yesterday to the collector at Liverpool not to exercise the powers of the 
act in this instance, it being considered that the facts disclosed in the affi- 
davits made before him were not sufficient to justify the collector in seizing 
the vessel. 

On behalf of the government of the United States I now respectfully re- 
quest that this matter, which, I need not point out to you, involves conse- 
quences of the greatest possible description, may be reconsidered by the 
board of customs, on the further evidence now adduced. 

The gunboat now lies in Birkenhead docks ready for sea in all respects, 
with a crew of fifty men on board. She may sail at any time, and I trust 
the urgency of the case will excuse the course I have adopted of sending 
these papers direct to the board instead of transmitting them through the 
collector at Liverpool, and the request, which I now venture to make, that 
the matter may receive immediate attention. 

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

A. F. SQUARRY. 

Secretary of H. M. Board of Customs, London. 



154 

No. 1. 
Mr. Squarry to Mr. Adams. 

Tavistock Hotel, Covent Garden, 

London, July 25, 1862. 

Gunboat No. 290. 

Sir: I have further to report to you on this matter that I have again seen 
Mr. O'Dowd, the solicitor to. the board of customs, who informs me that on 
receipt of my letter addressed to the secretary yesterday, the board resolved 
to refer the matter to the law officers of the crown, by whose opinion they 
would be guided as to seizing the vessel. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

A. F. SQUARRY. 
His Excellency The American Minister. 



ill?'. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 308.] Department of State, 

Washington, July 28, 1862. 

Sir: If the surmises and apprehensions which prevail here are at all in- 
dicative of occurrences in Europe, then political society there is agitated 
and occupied by suggestions, schemes, and plans of intervention in our 
affairs. Passing by chronic affections of the public morals in Europe, I ap- 
prehend that .it is now excited by some recent irritations. Congress has 
just now augmented our tariff of imports on foreign merchandise. Since 
nearly all the positions at which we aimed have been attained and occupied, 
there is more decided resistance made by the insurgents upon the few 
which it remains for us to carry. 

Our assault upon Richmond is for the moment suspended. No great and 
striking movements or achievements are occurring, and the government is 
rather preparing its energies for renewed operations than continuing to sur- 
prise the world with new and brilliant victories. The tone of the insur- 
gents has been suddenly emboldened, while recent expressions of grief and 
sorrow, which naturally and justly follow battles attended by great losses 
of cherished lives, for the moment have seemed to indicate that the friends 
of the Union are less resolute and hopeful than heretofore. Cotton, the 
great want of Europe, has not flowed out of the ports which we have opened 
as freely as was unreasonably expected by the manufacturers of that conti- 
nent, and their disappointment seems ripening into despondency. 

It is not upon isolated events, much less upon transitory popular impulses, 
that governments are expected to build their policies in regard to foreign 
countries. 

What I think is important, not less for foreign nations than for ourselves, 
is always to hold our civil war under contemplation, not merely as broken 
streams of unequal widths and intermitting currents, but as one continuous 
river, and so not to forget its source, its direction, and not only its imme- 
diate and local, but also its ultimate and universal effects. 

It is only the reflecting observer who habitually considers the course of 
events occurring in any one country as being determined, or at least mate- 
rially influenced, by natural causes lying wholly or in part outside of that 
country, and which create a force commonly recognized under various 
names as the opinion of mankind, or the spirit or the genius of the age or 



155 

of the times. Even such observers, while directing the opinion of mankind 
towards the abolition of slavery in the countries which tolerated it, have 
habitually forgotten that foreign interests and agencies have co-operated 
with domestic ones in the planting, hedging, cherishing, and preserving of 
slavery, and equally so in aiding or hindering and retarding its removal. 
It is not unnatural, therefore, that those who, anywhere, have discussed the 
subject of slavery with a view to its removal have forgotten that a policy 
directed to that end must for a time materially affect private and public in- 
terests, reaching far beyond the direct action of the policy itself. There 
are two African slaveholding nations on the American continent — Brazil 
and the United States. The world has agreed that the practice of slavery 
by these two nations is, on their part, an error, perhaps I may say a crime, 
and has for more thjfn half a century demanded its speedy and complete 
discontinuance. This impatient demand was inspired by convictions of 
natural justice and sentiments of universal humanity, and the United States 
and Brazil, in different degrees, according to natural circumstances and na- 
tional sympathies, have responded. The empire of Brazil has interdicted the 
African slave trade, and slavery is declining there from that cause. The 
United States prohibited the African slave trade, but, owing to peculiar 
circumstances, slavery recovered from the blow, and alarmingly increased. 
The United States have, therefore, interdicted slavery in the new and unor- 
ganized portions of the republic, with the expectation that under that in- 
terdiction slavery would slowly, perhaps imperceptibly, but certainly, 
decline. 

No sooner did these measures take effect than Brazil and the United 
States began to experience inconveniences resulting from them. This was 
expected; for it is a political truism that every political reform, in propor- 
tion to its magnitude and its ultimate benefits, is immediately followed by 
social inconveniences, losses, and sufferings. If it were otherwise, public 
virtue, or virtue in the conduct of nations, would be relieved of trials such 
as individual virtue never escapes. It is understood that in Brazil whole 
provinces in which the coffee tree is relatively unproductive are being de- 
populated by the removal of slaves to others more favorable to its culture, 
the price of labor increases, and the relative profits derived from it abate. 

In the United States the slaveholders resist the reform, and wage civil 
war to overthrow the government. Brazil and the United States have not 
claimed from other nations any indemnity for, or even any sympathy in, 
these sacrifices. They would have exhibited a want not merely of magna- 
nimity, but of common sense, if they had done so. But both of these 
countries have a right to expect that other nations will bear with equal 
magnanimity their own lesser shares of the inconveniences resulting from 
the measures which were adopted, in part at their own instance, and in the 
name of common justice and humanity. I think that this expectation has 
not been disappointed in the case of Brazil. I do not hear that any nation 
or people propose to disturb or destroy, or aid in disturbing or destroying, 
that empire because coffee has become relatively more scarce, and therefore 
more costly. All nations take cheerfully the coffee that Brazil can send 
them, and look elsewhere for supplies of the deficiency. 

But in this country the slaveholding insurgents solemnly resolve to compel 
foreign nations to join them in overthrowing the government, and to guar- 
anty boundless and endless African slavery on this continent by burning the 
cotton already produced, and preventing the production of more; and, 
strange to say, these nations are asked to entertain the question whether 
they shall not intervene to defeat the reform they so justly urged, at the 
cost of the national existence of the United States. The resistance of the 



156 

slaveholders is thus seen to be not merely treason against this country, but 
a war against human nature itse.lf, and the European nations not only claim 
to be neutral, but they are represented as hesitating whether, under the 
pressure of a want of cotton, they shall not become allies in that war. 

What are the reasons urged upon those governments by short-sighted 
politicians for such a proceeding. They are various, but none of them will 
bear examination ? First it was said that civil war among us endangers 
the commerce of foreign nations, and that they have a right to practice 
neutrality. So, indeed, they have, if their commerce is endangered, and if 
pronounced neutrality will save their commerce. But no slaveholding 
cruiser from this country ever attacked, or even menaced, the commerce of 
Europe before the attitude of neutrality was adopted. Then it was said 
that the United States resorted to a blockade, but the blockade is an appli- 
cation of force allowed by the laws of nations to all belligerents. Then 
the blockade was represented as being imperfect; but if it had been so. it 
was therefore the less injurious. Then it was too rigorous, and prevented 
the export of cotton and the import of fabrics. Is not this the lawful 
object of a blockade ? Then it was alleged that the closing of the cotton 
ports by the blockade was continued too long. We opened them to trade, 
and invited it; the insurgents refuse to let cotton be sent forward to market. 
We apply all our means and energies, confessedly greater than any nation 
ever before applied, to suppress insurrection and restore the freedom of our 
inland and foreign commerce, and we gain victory after victory, yet this 
does not satisfy our enemies abroad. Defeats in their eyes prove our na- 
tional incapacity. Victories won in conformity with the most humane 
practices of war are attended with such destruction of life as to shock and 
confound their sensibilities. Complaints against an increase of duties on 
foreign merchandise, and against the rigor of our taxation, come upon us in 
the very same breath with representations that our engagements will never be 
fulfilled, and our bonds not yet matured are advised to be forced back upon 
our newly filled money market for sale. The same voices which are pro- 
claiming to the world that the preservation of the Union is a task too ex- 
pensive for the government denounce the revenue measures adopted to 
secure the accomplishment of that task as hostile to foreign nations. At 
first the government was considered as unfaithful to humanity in not pro- 
claiming emancipation, and when it appeared that slavery, by being thus 
forced into the contest, must suffer, and perhaps perish in the conflict, then 
the war had become an intolerable propagandism of emancipation by the 
sword. 

I do not require you to complain, as these facts, perhaps, might warrant 
me in doing, that there seems a predisposition in western Europe, if not in 
favor of the slaveholders and their cause, at least against the Union and 
the cause of humanity that is now for weal or woe identified with its pre- 
servation. 

I have brought this identification of the cause of humanity with that of 
our country thus prominently into view for the purpose of showing that the 
motives and the objects of those who oppose or seek to embarrass the latter, 
either at home or abroad, may be well understood and fairly weighed, and 
the moral as well as the material resources of the country may not be 
undervalued. 

Having done this, it remains for me only to say further, that the purpose 
of the American government and people to maintain and preserve the 
Union and their Constitution remains unchanged; that the war in which 
they have been engaged, though it has been opposed by agencies and in- 
fluences abroad which we had not foreseen, has been crowned with suc- 
cesses which are satisfactory to our calmer reason and judgment; that 



157 

temporary disappointment of our expectations, with our grief over losses 
of valuable lives, unavoidable among a humane, affectionate, Christian 
people, has already culminated, and it is now declining'; that our armies 
remaining in the field, with their appointments, excel by far all the forces 
which the insurgents have now, with any augmentation they can make; 
that, in addition to the present forces, the orders are issued, the machinery 
is in motion, for the immediate addition of three hundred thousand men, all 
of whom will come into camps with an alacrity equal to that which has 
heretofore been exhibited by the people; that inactivity is already giving 
place to new and effective exertions which will be sufficient for the termi- 
nation of the war; that below these new ranks of volunteers there still re- 
mains a mass yet sedentary, and which is daily increased by immigration, 
which is equal to all that has been called forth, which will be prepared as a 
reserve, and, if necessary, will be brought up to decide the contest. Neither 
the government nor the country has experienced exhaustion, or even 
financial pressure, but in the midst of wars and campaigns the fiscal condi- 
tion of both is satisfactory, and superior to that of any other government 
and people. We are a nation not chiefly of cotton-growers, but of farmers, 
manufacturers, and miners. We will induce or oblige our slaveholding 
citizens to supply Europe with cotton if we can. So far as we fail we fill 
up the deficiency promptly by sending bread and gold. We invite foreign 
products such as we need at prices which we can afford to pay, and we 
invite a premature return of all our bonds and stocks, and will promptly 
pay and redeem in gold, with which cotton may be bought wherever free- 
men can, with gold, be induced to raise it. Let the world judge whether 
more can be required of us. If we are not met by serious obstacles raised 
by foreign powers we shall speedily open all the channels of commerce, and 
free them from military embarrassments, and cotton, so much desired by all 
nations, will flow forth as freely as heretofore. We have ascertained that 
there are three and a half millions of bales yet remaining in the region 
where it was produced, though large quantities of it are yet unginned and 
otherwise unprepared for the market. We have instructed the military 
authorities to favor, so far as they can consistently with the public safety, 
its preparation for and despatch to the markets, where it is so much wanted; 
and now, notwithstanding the obstructions which have necessarily attended 
the re-establishment of the federal authority in that region against watchful 
and desperate public enemies, in whose hands the suppression of the cotton 
trade by fire and force is a lever with which they expect to raise up allies 
throughout Europe, that trade has already begun to revive, and we are 
assured by our civil and military agents that it may be expected to increase 
fast enough to relieve the painful anxieties expressed to us by friendly 
nations. The President has given respectful consideration to the desire in- 
formally expressed to me by the governments of Great Britain and France 
for some further relaxations of the blockade in favor of that trade. They 
are not rejected, but are yet held under consideration, with a view to ascer- 
tain more satisfactorily whether they are really necessary, and whether they 
can be adopted without such serious detriment to our military operations as 
would render them injurious rather than beneficial to the interest of all con- 
cerned. An answer will be seasonably given, which will leave foreign 
powers in no uncertainty about our course. Such are the expectations of 
this government. They involve a continued reliance upon the practice of 
justice and respect of our sovereignty by foreign powers. It is not neces- 
sary for me to say that if this reliance fails, this civil war will, without our 
fault, become a war of continents — a war of the world ; and whatever else 
may revive, the cotton trade built upon slave labor in this country will be 



158 

irredeemably wrecked in the abrupt cessation of human bondage within the 
territories of the United States. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., 8f0., fyo., §c. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 312.] Department op State, 

Washington, July 31, 1862. 

Sir : I hasten to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 18th of 
July, (No. 191.) It is accompanied by a note which was addressed to you 
by Earl Russell, of the following effect, namely: 

It brings into view the 6th article of the new treaty for the suppression of 
the African slave trade, which provides that British or American merchant 
vessels may be lawfully detained, and sent or brought before the mixed 
courts of justice, if in their equipment there should be found^ any of the 
things specified in that article as usually forming part of the equipment of 
slave vessels. • 

Earl Russell then specifies several suspicious circumstances, which are 
mentioned in the treaty as being sufficient to warrant seizure, such as a 
quantity of water larger than is required by a merchant vessel, an extra- 
ordinary supply of provisions, a boiler or other cooking apparatus of an un- 
usual size, or capable of being made larger than requisite for the use of 
merchantmen. 

Earl Russell then calls attention to the Tth article of the same treaty, 
which provides that if an3 7 of the things specified in the said 6th article shall 
be found on board a vessel that may have been detained, or if any of these 
things shall be found to have been on board during the voyage on which 
she was captured, no compensation for losses or expenses consequent upon 
the detention of such vessel shall in any case be granted, even though she 
should not be condemned by the mixed court of justice. 

Earl Russell then observes that some of the things specified in article 6, 
particularly unusual supplies of water and provisions and a large cooking 
apparatus, may be found on board of vessels legally employed on the Afri- 
can coast, and therefore, he remarks, it becomes important that such vessels 
should not be put to any unnecessary inconvenience or detention. In this 
view he supposes that an American vessel, engaged in carrying liberated 
Africans to Liberia or to any other port of Africa, may on her voyage to 
or from the African coast fall in with a British cruiser, and unless the com- 
mander of the British vessel were assured that the vessel was engaged on 
a legal voyage she might suffer detention. So, on the other hand, his 
lordship supposes that a British vessel, engaged in transporting or fitted 
for the conveyance of liberated Africans from Sierra Leone or from St. 
Helena to another British colony, might suffer detention at the hands of the 
commander of an American cruiser, unless the commander were assured of 
the legality of the voyage of the British ship. 

His lordship, pursuing the subject, next states that, with a view to pro- 
vide for the exemption from seizure or detention of vessels legally fitted for 
the conveyance of Africans to or from the African coast, it is the intention 
of her Majesty's government to cause British vessels so employed to be pro- 
vided with a passport or safe conduct, to be signed by one of her Majesty's 
secretaries, or by the governor of the British colony from which such vessel 



159 

ma}' have sailed, and that such passport or safe conduct will state the name, 
tonnage, and description of the vessel, and the name of the commander, and 
the purpose of the voyage, and will be good only for the voyage on which 
the vessel will be chartered. 

His lordship finally proposes that this government shall furnish to Ameri- 
can vessels which may be legally employed on the African coast, and whose 
equipment may render them liable to seizure and detention under the terms 
of the treaty, a similar passport or safe conduct, signed by a competent 
United States authority, and Earl Russell, on the part of her Majesty's gov- 
ernment, guarantees that British cruisers shall not molest American vessels 
provided with such passports, and asks a similar guarantee to be given by 
this government to British vessels provided by their own government with 
passports in the manner before stated. 

The propositions have been submitted to the President of the United 
States. You are authorized to inform Earl Russell that they are entirely 
and cheerfully accepted by this government. Passports or safe conducts in 
the cases specified will, until further notice, be signed only by the Secretary 
of State of the United States. Instructions proper for executing this new 
arrangement will be immediately given to the naval commanders concerned 
therein. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 19?.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 31, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of despatches from 
the department numbered from 291 to 302, both inclusive ; also, the two 
despatches numbered 281 and 281, heretofore noted as missing ; also, two 
circulars, one in writing, enclosing a copy of the emancipation bill, as pro- 
posed in the message of the President, the other printed, containing direc- 
tions to the legation in regard to charges for passports. And lastly, three 
printed copies of the treaty lately executed for the more effectual suppression 
of the slave trade. 

This is the closing week of the session of parliament. Ministers indulged 
in the valedictory whitebait dinner yesterday, and nothing remains to be 
done but to perfect the details of the bill intended to give temporary relie 
to the operatives of the manufacturing districts during the continuance 
of the difficulty about cotton. It is announced that the Queen, after a brief 
sojourn in Scotland, is to visit the continent and spend the autumn in seclu- 
sion in Germany. So that, to all outward appearances, no expectation is 
entertained of the happening of any public event to vary the customary 
monotony of the amusements of the vacation. The speech of Sir George 
Cornwall Lewis, in the course of a debate last week about Canada, seemed 
to indicate a state of security against difficulty in America which, if well 
founded, would leave us nothing to desire. According to this representation, 
I should feel justified in making my calculations upon a considerable period 
of repose. 

On the other hand, I cannot fail to perceive the progressive consolidation 
of the popular prejudice against America under the operations of the con- 
tinuous denunciations of the London Times. The sympathies of the higher 
classes are decidedly enlisted in the struggle, not from any particular affec- 



160 

tion for either side, but from a longing to see the political power of the 
United States permanently impaired. The direction which this sentiment 
takes is naturally most in opposition to the government which aims to rein- 
state its authority. That it will embody itself in any form likely to dictate 
action, I do not venture to predict. Much will depend upon chance or the 
occurrence of some favorable opportunity. At present it remains inert, and 
rather looking out in the hope of movement from abroad than desirous to 
originate anything at home. 

The constant cry is that the Emperor of France will interfere. The wish 
is so much the father to the thought that it is difficult to make people believe 
this ministry is not interposing much too stubbornly against the execution 
of his desire. If I am to credit the rumors that I hear from sources claiming 
to be of high authority, the Emperor has sent for Mr. Slidell and announced 
that he is ready to recognize the rebel States without the concurrence of 
England. But for the sake of courtesy he desires him to direct Mr. Mason 
to make a new application to the ministers, so as finally to test the determi- 
nation here. These are stories which I trace pretty directly to the confed- 
erate emissaries themselves, who sedulously agitate this alternation of 
rumors between the two countries to serve their ends. Of the degree of 
credit to which they are entitled, you are in a position better qualified to 
judge than I. My object is simply to warn you of the prevailing temper 
which certainly desires interposition of some kind, and which, therefore, can- 
not be regarded as entirely prognosticating calmness and peace. Hence it 
must be remembered that however favorable the ministry here may now be 
to the maintenance of their declared policy, they are not in a condition to 
stand long in resistance to any popular outcry prompted by the concentrated 
passions of an agitated community. The experience of the case of the Trent 
is of too recent occurrence to make it necessary to seek further for an illus- 
tration of what I mean. 

In this view it is impossible to over estimate the degree of influence that 
attaches to the operations of the war of America. The tendency being 
always to undervalue the progress of one party and to magnify the success 
of the other, it is of some importance to me to be possessed, as nearly as 
possible, of the precise position of things. I am, therefore, much indebted 
to you for the accounts regularly furnished to me, giving the latest informa- 
tion on the subject. An impression is sedulously given that General Mc- 
Clellan's force is practically annulled, and that the whole work of restoration 
is to begin anew. This is very much aided by the complete darkness that 
surrounds the situation of the rebels. The exaggeration so prevalent in all 
our own papers, both of their numbers and condition, is skilfully used against 
us to prove that whilst we are suffering they are in a state of comparative 
ease and comfort. How diametrically opposite to the actual facts is this 
assumption it is needless to point out. The imagination can, if rightly 
moved, cover up the most unsightly skeleton in the robes of an angel of light. 
I shall always be glad to be possessed of the means to dissipate these illu- 
sions. But in order so to do most effectually, it is indispensable that the 
information given me should not only be full, but explicit, as well in regard 
to the less as the more favorable aspects of the situation. The best item in 
your last seems to me to be that the President has determined once more to 
give military unity to the conduct of the war. The fatal experience of Na- 
poleon, in giving separate commands to his officers in the war of the Penin- 
sula, appears to be a standing lesson against the repetition of such mistakes. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



161 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 198.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 31, 1862. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit copies of two more notes, which have 
been exchanged here since my last despatch, (No. 188,) touching the case of 
the United States steamer Saginaw and her warning to leave the port of 
Hong Kong. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, 



Foreign Office, July 25, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th 
instant, in which you call attention to the circumstances under which the 
United States steamer Saginaw had been required to quit the harbor of 
Hong Kong, in compliance with the terms of her Majesty's proclamation of 
the 31st of January last. You draw at the same time a comparison between 
the course thus adopted towards the Saginaw and that which had been fol- 
lowed with regard to the Sumter, at Gibraltar. 

I have, in reply, to observe that the difference between the circumstances 
of the two cases lies in the fact that the Sumter was in the waters of Gib- 
raltar before the proclamation had been issued by her Majesty's government, 
whereas it appears that the Saginaw went to Hong Kong subsequent to its 
issue. 

In framing the regulations contained in the proclamation her Majesty's 
government have acted on the principle of impartiality, but the effect has 
been greatly to the advantage of the United States cruisers and to the dis- 
advantage of those of the confederate States. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest considerations, sir, your most 
obedient humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC., fyc., tyc. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, July 28, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your note of 
the 25th instant, in answer to mine of the 14th, touching the case of the 
United States steamer Saginaw. In reply to my suggestion of a seeming 
difference of treatment experienced at Gibraltar in the case of the Sumter 
and at Hong Kong in the case of that vessel, your lordship remarks that it 
is to be attributed to the fact that the Sumter was in the waters of Gibral- 
tar before the proclamation had been issued, whereas the Saginaw went to 
Hong Kong subsequently to its issue. 
11 



162 

If by this it be understood that the date of issue of the proclamation in 
London is the rule applied to vessels happening to be at the most remote 
dependencies of Great Britain, I must admit that these two cases are not 
precisely parallel. My impression had been that that paper was not de- 
signed to have a retroactive operation, but that it went into effect, as is 
often the case in treaties, from the date of reception and notice by the local 
government of the distant colony to which it was to apply. In that view it 
would seem that the Saginaw had arrived at Hong Kong more than a fort- 
night prior to the issue of the governor's proclamation. 

In making the representation respecting the case of the Saginaw it was 
not, however, my desire to raise this question as one of primary importance. 
I rather wished to point out the exceptional nature of the China seas, in 
which all commercial nations seem to have a common interest in rendering 
to each other, so far as possible, a mutual support. 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurance of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Rigrht Hon. Earl Russell. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 199.] . Legation of the United States, 

London, July 31, 1862. 

Sir: You must long before this have received all the information respect- 
ing the Laird gunboat, No. 290, for which you ask in your despatch No. 
299, of the 12th of July. It only remains for me to continue the narrative 
of that transaction down to this date. In spite of all my efforts and remon- 
strances, which as yet wait the opinion of the law officers of the crown, I 
received on the 29th instant from Mr. Dudley, the consul at Liverpool, the 
news that she sailed without register or clearance from that port on that 
day. I immediately communicated the intelligence. by telegraph to Captain 
Craven, at Southampton. I learn from the consul at that place that the 
Tuscarora sailed from thence at 8 p. m. on the 29th instant. Should the 
captain be so fortunate as to encounter the vessel on the high seas, I have 
every reason to believe that he will attempt her capture. But I have given 
him no instructions how far to pursue her, or what to do in case of failure. 
In these respects he is left entirely to his own discretion. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of Stale, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seivard. 
[Extract.] • 



No. 201.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 1, 1862. 
Sir : Yesterday I had a conference with Lord Russell at the foreign office, 
in the course of which I went over the various subjects whereupon I, had 
received instructions in your late despatches. I propose to review them in 
the oider in which they came up. 



163 

1. And first, 1 communicated to his lordship the substance of your de- 
spatch (No. 271) of the 7th of June, so far as it related to him and to your 
view of the action of the Spanish government towards Mexico. The reason- 
why this has not been done before was, that it did not seem to make an 
object of itself sufficient to ask for it a special conference, and until now I 
had no others to join with it. 

2. I read to his lordship the substance of your despatches Nos. 281 and 
299 respecting the use made of the island of Nassau by the rebels, and the 
fitting out of the gunboats Oreto and 290. His lordship first took up the 
case of 290, and remarked that a delay in determining upon it had most 
unexpectedly been caused by the sudden development of a malady of the 
Queen's advocate, Sir John D. Harding, totally incapacitating him for the 
transaction of business. This had made it necessary to call in other parties, 
whose opinion had been at last given for the detention of the gunboat, but 
before the order got down to Liverpool the vessel was gone. He should, 
however, send directions to have her stopped if she went, as was probable, 
to Nassau. I said I was aware that the gunboat was off, but I did not say, 
what I myself have little doubt of, that her sudden departure was occasioned 
by a notion, obtained somehow or other, that such a proceeding was im- 
pending. I added an expression of satisfaction that the law officers of the 
crown had seen their way to give such an opinion, and that it was the dis- 
position of her Majesty's government to do something to check this outrage- 
ous abuse. In this connexion I begged to ask if he had any information 
respecting the proceedings had at Nassau in the case of the Oreto. I had 
seen a statement in the newspapers, additional to the information contained 
in the despatch No. 281 which I had read to him, to the effect that the Oreto 
had been actually stopped and put under the guns of her Majesty's ship the 
Greyhound. I hoped this was true, for I thought the effect of such a pro- 
ceeding would be very favorably viewed in America. His lordship replied 
that he had received no information on the subject beyond what I had re- 
ferred to, which came from the American newspapers. With regard to the 
complaint against the island of Nassau, he could only say that he had re- 
ceived, a short time since, a letter, signed by many commercial people in 
Liverpool and elsewhere, remonstrating against the virtual blockade of that 
island by United States-war vessels, and the subjection of' many innocent 
British ships to the inconveniences of detention and search as if engaged in 
illegitimate trade. To this representation he had written a repty, stating 
that however much the inconveniences mentioned were to be regretted, it 
was not the disposition of the government to afford protection to any parties 
that might be engaged in undertakings in violation of her Majesty's procla- 
mation ; and when there was reason to suppose that such adventures might 
be carried on, it was difficult to raise objections to the right of examination. 
His lordship added that he had expected both the letter and his answer 
would have been published before this by parties concerned, but they had 
not thought fit to do so. I replied that they knew too much to be caught 
doing that, but 1 should take pleasure in communicating this fact to my 
government. Any and all evidence which I could obtain of a disposition, 
on the part of her Majesty's ministers, to discountenance the notorious and 
flagrant abuses of neutrality, now every day committed by British subjects, 
would be of great use to counteract the strong popular feeling in America 
growing up on account of them. We had every reason to believe that these 
war vessels were intended to prey directly upon our commerce, and most 
particularly to intercept the steamers bearing ^treasure to New York from 
California. Shouldone of those steamers be taken in. consequence of the 
omission to stop these outfits in British ports, the excitement that it would 
create in America would be> very great. Disposed, as I had always been, 



164 

to cultivate friendly relations between the two countries, I could not but 
look with much uneasiness upon all events which might tend to affect them 
unfavorably. His lordship said that he could not at once say whether it 
was proper to furnish copies of the correspondence alluded to or not, but I 
was welcome to mention the facts, and very probably he might send me the 
copies. 

3. Next, I opened the matters of the proposed consulate at Salmon Bay, as 
presented in your despatch (No. 292) of the 9th of July. I read to his lord- 
ship the substance of that paper, and submitted the whole subject to his 
consideration without further remark. He took a note of the tenor of it, 
and promised that it should receive early consideration. 

4. Lastly, I read to his lordship the despatch No. 296, relating to the 
claim of Mr. Herran for the fulfilment of the guarantee to New Granada to 
protect the transit on the Isthmus of Panama. I observed that it must be 
obvious that the government of the United States could not desire just at 
this time to enlarge the field of operation for its forces ; hence that its per- 
formance of this obligation would necessarily depend only upon a full con- 
viction of its imperative character. On that point it would be glad to con- 
sult with other powers most interested in the transit, which it was the ob- 
ject to preserve. His lordship seemed already well informed of the facts in 
the case. He said that. he did not yet perceive the contingency to have 
occurred which called for interposition. It was true that General Mosquera 
was in occupation of the territory in resistance to the Granadian govern- 
ment. Such things were happening all the time in South America. But 
there had been no attempt, so far as he knew, to obstruct the free transit 
across the isthmus, nor did he understand that any disposition had been 
shown to do so. Until there should be some manifestation of the sort, any 
demonstration might have the appearance of interposing to effect a different 
purpose. His lordship added that, on the happening of an actual derangement 
of the communication, the British goverment would readily co-operate with 
the United States in the measures that might be thought necessary to make 
good the privileges secured by the guarantee. 

I believed this closed all the topics to which it had been made my duty 
especially to call his lordship's attention. I then took my leave of him, 
probably for the season, as he spoke of his departure from town next week, 
and mentioned that the under secretary would, in his absence, attend to the 
transaction of any business that I might have occasion to propose. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 202.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 1; 1862. 

Sir : I forgot, in my report of my conference with Lord Russell yester- 
day, to allude to an incidental matter to which he requested me to call your 
attention. He said that a bill for the further execution of the late treaty in 
suppression of the slave trade had been passed by Parliament, and the 
government was about to fill the places contemplated in the commission at 
New York. He wished to know if I had any information as to correspond- 



165 

ing action taken in America. I replied in the negative, as from any official 
sources. But 1 had seen in the newspapers some reference to a con- 
templated appointment under the same commission. His lordship said he 
should be glad to have me mention the subject to you. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 314.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 2, 1862. 
6^ .# * * * * * * * * 

It is indeed manifest in the tone of the speeches, as well as in the general 
tenor of popular discussions, that neither the responsible ministers, nor the 
House of Commons, nor the active portion of the people of Great Britain 
sympathize with this government, and hope, or even wish for its success in 
suppressing the insurrection ; and that, on the contrary, the whole British 
nation, speaking practically, desire and expect the dismemberment Of the 
republic. I cannot deny that these sentiments must insensibly influence 
the administration, and give its policy a hostile direction. But these senti 
ments are, after all, in a great measure speculations ; and they may very 
well exist, and yet the government, and certainly the people of Great Britain, 
may be entirely unprepared by any responsible action to attempt to precipi- 
tate a change here whose consequences may be momentous, even to them- 
selves. I well recollect that with what seemed to us far better motives, 
Great Britain recently wished and expected the separation of Hungary and 
of Venice from Austria ; and yet the government passively looked on, and 
saw the revolutions designed to effect those ends languish and perish. It 
is a proverb that the earth is full of good but unexecuted intentions. Hap- 
pily for human society, the proportion of evil intentions unfulfilled is equally 
great. Indeed, we can hardly be surprised at the disposition and the ten- 
dencies upon which I am dwelling, unless we shall persist, after so much 
opposing evidence, in our early error of conceding to Great Britain a degree 
of magnanimity which she herself does not even affect to claim, and which, 
perhaps, has never yet been exhibited by any nation. We cannot forget 
that we are a younger branch of the British family ; that we have not been 
especially reverential of the senior branch, and have even been ambitious to 
surpass it in wealth, power, and influence among the nations. To these 
facts it is to be added that, in the very heat of competition, we have broken, 
have abandoned the course, and have divided ourselves into suicidal 
factions. The success of the insurgents would make it sure that the race 
could never be resumed, while the triumph of the government would 
probably reanimate the national ambition once more. At this moment we 
have encountered an unexpected reverse, which encourages our eager ene- 
mies, wherever they may be, to hope for our signal and complete overthrow. 
Did ever any nation, at once so presumptuous, yet so unwise, and so appa- 
rently unfortunate, secure the absolute forbearance of a rival it had boldly 
challenged ? Certainly not, and therefore I reckon not upon any sentimental 
forbearance of the British government. The American people understand, 
as well as their government does, that none is to be expected or even de- 



166 

sired. Still the disfavor of Great Britain is inherently illiberal ; and happily 
the unwarrantable and too unreserved exhibition of it naturally rouses the 
American people to a sense of their danger, and tends to recall them from 
unworthy domestic strife to the necessity of. regaining the national prestige 
they have so unwisely lost. Allowing now British prejudice and passion 
their full effect, the government of Great Britain must, nevertheless, be ex- 
pected to act with a due regard to the safety, honor, and welfare of the 
British empire. Great Britain is at peace with the whole United States, 
and practically with the whole world. Manufactures and commerce do, 
indeed, suffer derangement and abatement in consequence of our civil war. 
This war, however, like every other, must come to an end in some way, and 
at some not distant time.,- if she continue to stand aloof ; and when that end 
shall have come, whatever its nature may be, she will enjoy, at least, all 
the benefits that she could in any event obtain by intervention to compel a 
peace. Is it probable that her intervention would mitigate the war, or alle- 
viate the embarrassment she is suffering from it ? The question seems to 
involve a preliminary one, namely : what is to be the character of her inter- 
vention ? Is it to be merely a moral one, or an act of recognition, with a 
declaration of neutrality, but not respecting our blockade, and not refrain- 
ing and restraining her subjects from violating it ? Shall we not, in that 
case, be justified in withdrawing the relaxation of the blockade we have 
already made, and in closing the ports we have opened to her commerce? 
If we should do this, would her recognition of the insurgents shorten the 
war, or would it alleviate the embarrassment she suffers from it? But it 
may be answered that she would not consent to surrender these conces- 
sions, and would resort to force to save them. Then Great Britain would 
violate belligerent rights allowed us by the law of nations, and would be- 
come an ally of our domestic enemies ; and then she would be at war with 
us while, at least, some other commercial state would be maintaining 
towards us relations of neutrality and peace. Would Great Britain profit 
by a war with us ? Certainly neither nation could profit by the war while 
it should be in actual operation. But it is said she might divide and con- 
quer us. What would she gain by that ? Would the whole or any part of 
the United States accept her sovereignty and submit to her authority? The 
United States, under their present organization and Constitution, must 
always be a peaceful nation, practically friendly to Great Britain, as well 
as to all foreign states, and so they must always be conservative of the 
peace of nations. Let this organization be struck down by any foreign 
combinations, what guarantee could Great Britain then have of influence or 
favor, or even commercial advantage to be derived from this country? Even 
if this nation, after having lost its liberties and its independence, should 
remain practically passive, who is to restrain the ambitions of European 
states for influence and dominion on this side of the Atlantic ; and how 
long, under the agitation of such ambitions, could Europe expect to remain 
in peace with itself? But what warrant have the British government for 
expecting to .conquer the United States, and to subjugate and desolate 
them, or to dictate to them terms of peace. A war urged against us by 
Great Britain could not fail to reunite our people. Every sacrifice that 
their independence could require would be cheerfully and instantly made, 
and every force and every resource which has hitherto been held in reserve 
in a civil war, because the necessity for immediately using it has not been 
felt, would be brought into requisition. I shall not willingly believe that 
Great Britain deliberately desires such a war, as I am sure that every 
honorable and generous effort will be made by the United States to avoid it. 
In the second place, I observe that apprehensions of a change of attitude 
by Great Britain are built in some degree upon the supposed probability 



167 

that very serious reverses to the national cause may occur. None such, 
however, have yet occurred. We cannot and do not pretend to reckon upon 
the chances of a single battle or a single campaign. Such chances are, 
perhaps, happily beyond human control and even human foresight. But the 
general course of the war and its ultimate results are subjects of calcula- 
tion, on a survey of forces and circumstances with the aid of experience. 
We cheerfully leave the study of the probabilities of this war, in this way, 
to all statesmen and governments whom it may concern, declaring for our- 
-selves that while we apprehend no immediate danger to the present military 
condition, the most serious reverses which can happen will not produce one 
•moment's hesitation on the part of the government or the people of the 
United States in the purpose of maintaining the Union, or sensibly shake 
their confidence in a triumphant conclusion of the war. 

I shall not here add to the explanation which I have made on other occa- 
sions of our means and resources for meeting a final trial of the national 
strength and the national virtue. Rather than do this, I willingly turn away 
from the spectacle of servile war and war abroad — of military devastation 
on land, and of a carnival of public and private cupidity on the seas, which 
has been presented to me — to set down with calmness some reflections cal- 
culated to avert an issue so unnecessary and so fatal, which you may pos- 
sibly find suitable occasion for suggesting to the rulers of Great Britain. 
For what was this great continent, brought up, as it were, from the depths 
of what before had been known as " the dark and stormy ocean ?" Did the 
European states which found and occupied it, almost without effort, then 
understand its real destiny and purposes ? Have they ever yet fully under- 
stood and accepted them ? Has anything but disappointment upon disap- 
pointment, and disaster upon disaster, resulted from their misapprehensions ? 
After near four hundred years of such disappointments and disasters is the 
way of Providence in regard to America still so mysterious that it cannot 
be understood and confessed. Columbus, it was said, had given a new 
world to the kingdoms of Castile and Leon. What has become of the sov- 
ereignty of Spain in America ? Richelieu occupied and fortified a large 
portion of the continent, extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Straits 
of Belleisle. Does France yet retain that important appendage to the crown 
of her sovereign ? Great Britain acquired a dominion here surpassing, 
by an hundred fold in length and breadth, the native realm. Has not a 
large portion of it been already formally resigned ? To whom have these 
vast dominions with those founded by the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the 
•Swedes, been resigned but to American nations, the growth of European 
colonists, and exiles who have come hither bringing with them the arts, 
the civilization, and the virtues of Europe ? Has not the change been ben- 
eficial to society on this continent ? Has it not been more beneficial even 
to Europe itself than continued European domination, if it had been pos- 
sible, could have been ? The American nations which have grown up 
here are free and self-governing. They have made themselves so from in- 
herent vigor and in obedience to an absolute necessity. Is it possible for 
European states to plunge them again into a colonial state and hold them 
there ? Would it be desirable for them and for Europe, if it were pos- 
sible ? The balance of power among the nations of Europe is maintained 
not without numerous strong armies and frequent conflicts, while the sphere 
of political ambition there is bounded by the ocean which surrounds that 
continent. Would it be possible to maintain it at all if this vast continent, 
with all its populations, their resources, and their forces, should once again 
be brought within that sphere. If we, who rightfully dwell on this conti- 
nent, with all the inducements to peace, harmony, and good order which so 



168 

fortunate a position creates, cannot remain at peace among ourselves, even 
when free from foreign interference, does Europe expect that we will be 
reduced and kept in the harmony which her interests require when the 
jealousies and ambitions of all Europe are engrafted upon the stock of our 
native dissensions? Again: Spain undertook to plant and establish here a 
system of Indian slavery, with what success I need not answer. Portugal, 
Spain, and Great Britain, with more labor, wealth, and consummate skill, 
undertook to establish African slavery. It has perished from the whole 
continent except Brazil and the United States. Now, when the social sys- 
tem of the United States is convulsed with the agony of slavery here, is it 
desirable that slavery should be revived and perpetuated, and the republic 
perish for refusing it unbounded expansion and duration ? Is it wise for 
Europe to attempt to rescue slavery ? Is it possible, if the attempt shall 
be made ? On the contrary of all these suppositions, is it not manifest that 
these American nations were called into existence to be the home of freemen; 
that the states of Europe have been trusted by Providence with their tute- 
lage, but that tutelage and all its responsibilities and powers are necessarily 
withdrawn to the relief and benefit of the parties and of mankind when 
these parties become able to choose their own system of government and to 
make and administer their own laws ? If they err in this choice, or in the 
conduct of their affairs, it will be found wise to leave them, like all other 
states, the privilege and responsibility of detecting and correcting the error 
by which they are, of course, the principal sufferers. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., <&c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



[Extract.] 

Department of State, 
No. 316.] Washington, August 4, 1862. 

You will receive herewith a correspondence which has taken place between 
Major General Butler and Mr. Johnson, which is the fruit of the suggestions 
informally made to that officer and General Shepley, by the President's direc- 
tion, through the commission which was sent to New Orleans on the open- 
ing of trade there. It may be well to communicate this correspondence to 
Earl Russell, and say that the policy of General Butler is approved. 

I learn from Mr. Stuart that Earl Russell complained to him that the 

mission of Mr. seemed to his lordship an evasion of the suggestion 

he had made to me in regard to a declaration that cotton bought by neutrals 
should not be confiscated. This is unjust on the part of Earl Russell. Mr. 
■ 's mission was directed, and he was on his way before the earl's sug- 
gestion was received. It may be well to set this matter right also, but you 
will not make the explanation in any spirit of complaint. 

I send you a note from General Halleck, showing how cotton is coming 
through Columbus. On the whole, I believe that the cotton trade will now 
revive quite as rapidly as has been at any time anticipated. 

It will, I think, be well to communicate the matters contained in this 



169 

despatch verbally and informally, but you may give copies of General But- 
ler's and General Halleck's correspondence. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., die., die., die. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 318.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 4, 1862. 
Sir: I have received your despatch (No. 18T) of the 17th ultimo, and its 
accompaniments, relative to the repairing of the Tuscarora at Southampton, 
and to the gunboat, supposed to be intended for the insurgents, which is 
under construction at Liverpool. 

Your proceedings in these matters are entirely approved. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., die., die., die. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seivard. 



No. 203.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 'I, 1862. 
Sir: In my despatch (No. 199) of the 30th of July I brought down the 
narrative of the proceedings in the case of the gunboat No. 290 to the morn- 
ing of the 29th. Later in the day I sent another telegram to Captain Craven, 
giving further intelligence from Liverpool, urging his departure from South- 
ampton, also that he should let me know his next movements, and caution- 
ing him about the line of British jurisdiction. To this message the captain 
immediately replied, announcing his departure at 8 o'clock, and his- intention 
to touch at Queenstown for further information. On the 30th of July I 
wrote to Captain Craven, by mail to Queenstown, giving fuller details, 
received at half-past eleven o'clock from Mr. Dudley, touching the move- 
ments of the gunboat off Point Lynas on that day. Early on the morning 
of the 31st I sent a telegram to Captain Craven, at Queenstown, -apprising 
him that 290 was said to be still off Point Lynas. At about 10 o'clock p. 
m. of that evening I received a telegram from Oaptain Craven, dated at 
Queenstown, announcing his reception of my despatch and his intention to 
await further instructions. This was answered by me early the next morn- 
ing in the following words, by telegram: 

"At latest, yesterday, she was off Point Ljmas; you must catch her if 
you can, and, if necessary, follow her across the Atlantic." 

On the same day I received by mail a note from Captain Craven, dated 
the 31st, announcing the receipt of my despatches and his decision to go to 
Point Lynas at noon on the 1st instant. 

Captain Craven seems to have sailed up St. George's channel. This last 
movement must have been made in forgetfulness of m v caution about British 
jurisdiction, for, even had he found No. 290 in that region, I had, in previous 
conversations with him, explained the reason why I should not consider it 
good policy to attempt her capture near the coast. In point of fact, this pro- 
ceeding put an end to every chance of his success. 



170 

On the 5th instant I received a letter from him, dated the 4th, at Queens- 
town, enclosing a report of his doings, addressed to the Secretary of the 
Navy, left open for my inspection, which I forward by this steamer, and at 
the same time apprising me of his intention to go round to Dublin and await 
a letter from me prior to his return to his station at Gibraltar. To this I 
sent the following reply: 

" Legation of the United States, 

"London, August 6, 1862. 
"Sir: I will forward your letter to the Secretary of the Navy. Having in 
my hands sufficient evidence to justify the step. I was willing to assume the 
responsibility of advising you to follow the boat No. 290 and take her 
wherever you could find her. But I cannot do the same with other vessels 
of which I have knowledge only from general report. I therefore think it 
best that you should resume your duties under the general instructions you 
have from the department, without further reference to me." 

It may have been of use to the Tuscarora to have obtained repairs at 
Southampton to put her in seaworthy condition. But had I imagined that 
the captain did not intend to try the sea, I should not have taken the respon- 
sibility of calling him from his station. I can only say that I shall not 
attempt anything of the kind again. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



•No. 205.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 7, 1862. 
Sir: In my despatch (No. 201) of the 1st instant, it may be recollected 
that I reported Lord Russell as making a conditional promise to furnish me 
with a copy of his letter to the Liverpool merchants, about the uses made 
by them of the port of Nassau. On the evening of the 4th instant I re- 
ceived a note transmitting the copy, but with a restriction that it was given 
in confidence. The next day, however, I received a Liverpool newspaper, 
in which the letter seems to have been inserted by the parties to whom it 
was addressed. Since then it has appeared in all the London papers. I 
therefore feel myself at liberty to transmit a copy of Lord Russell's note 
and of its enclosure. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 
[Confidential.] 

Foreign Office, August 4, 1862. 

Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honor 
to forward to him herewith, confidentially, for his information, a copy of a 
letter which Lord Russell caused to be addressed to Mr. Horsfall in reply to 



171 

a memorial forwarded l^ him from certain British merchants and ship-owners 
in Liverpool respecting- the proceedings o,f the United States cruisers off the 
Bahamas. 



Mr. Layard to Mr. Horsfall. 

Foreign Office, July 5, 1862. 

Sir: I am directed by Earl Russell to acknowledge the receipt of your 
letter of the 2d instant, enclosing a memorial from certain British merchants 
and ship-owners at Liverpool, in which they state that they view with con- 
siderable anxiety and apprehension the hostile attitude assumed by federal 
cruisers in the Bahama waters, and the memorialists pray that steps may 
be taken by her Majesty's government to protect British shipping in those 
waters, and to put a check on the seizures so repeatedly made by the federal 
cruisers. 

1 am to state to you, in reply, that it is alleged on the other hand by Mr. 
Seward and Mr. Adams that ships have been sent from this country t6 
America with a fixed purpose to run the blockade; that high premiums of 
insurance have been paid with this view, and that arms and ammunition 
have been thus conveyed to the southern States to enable them to carry oh 
the war. Lord Russell was unable either to deny the truth of those allega- 
tions or to prosecute to conviction the parties engaged in those transactions. 
But he cannot be surprised that the cruisers of the United States should 
watch with vigilance a port which is said to be the great entrepot of this 
commerce. 

Her Majesty's government have no reason to doubt the equity and adhe- 
rence to legal requirements of the United States prize courts. But he is 
aware that mauy vessels are subject to harsh treatment, and that, if cap- 
tured, the loss to the merchant is far from being compensated even by a 
favorable decision in a prize court. 

The true remedy would be that the merchants and ship-owners of Liver- 
pool should refrain from this species of trade. It exposes innocent com- 
merce to vexatious detention and search by American cruisers; it produces 
irritation and ill-will on the part of the population,of the northern States of 
America; it is contrary to the spirit of her Majesty's proclamation; and it 
exposes the British name to suspicions of bad faith, to which neither her 
Majesty's government nor the great body of the nation are justly obnoxious. 

It is true, indeed, that supplies of arms and ammunition have been sent 
to the federals equally in contravention of that neutrality which her Ma- 
jesty has proclaimed. It is true, also, that the federals obtain more freely 
and more easily that of which they stand in need. But if the confederates 
had the command of the sea they would no doubt watch as vigilantly and 
capture as readily British vessels going to New York as the federals now 
watch Charleston and capture vessels seeking to break the blockade. 

There can be no doubt that the watchfulness exercised by federal cruisers 
to prevent supplies reaching the confederates by sea will occasionally lead 
to vexatious visits of merchant ships not engaged in any pursuit to which 
the federals can properly object. This, however, is an evil to which war on 
the ocean is liable to expose neutral commerce, and her Majesty's govern- 
ment have done all they can fairly do, that is to say, they have urged the 
federal government to enjoin upon their naval officers greater caution in the 
exercise of their belligerent rights. 

Her Majesty's government having represented to the United States govern- 
ment every case in which they were justified in interfering, have only further 



172 

to observe, that it is the duty of her Majesty's subjects to conform to her 
Majesty's proclamation, and to abstain from furnishing to either of the 
belligerent parties any of the means of war, which are prohibited to be fur- 
nished by that proclamation. 
I am, sir, &c, 

A. H. LAYARD. 
T. B. Horsfall, Esq,, &fc., fyc, fyc. 



[Circular — No. 19.] 

To the diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in foreign countries. 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 8, 1862. 

At no former period of our history have our agricultural, manufacturing, 
or mining interests been more prosperous than at this juncture. This fact 
may be deemed surprising in view of the enhanced price for labor, occasioned 
by the demand for the rank and tile of the armies of the United States. It 
may, therefore, be confidently asserted that, even now, nowhere else can the 
industrious laboring man and artisan expect so liberal a recompense for his 
services as in the United States. You are authorized and directed to make 
these truths known in any quarter and in any way which may lead to the 
migration of such persons to this country. It is believed that a knowledge 
of them will alone suffice to cause them to be acted upon. The government 
has no legal authority to offer any pecuniary inducements to the advent of 
industrious foreigners. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



[Circular— No. 18.] 

To the diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in foreign countries. 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 8, 1862. 

It is expected that, until further notice, you will not issue a passport to 
any citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and otherwise 
liable to the performance of military duty, who you may have reason to sup- 
pose shall have left the United States subsequently to this date. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 319.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 8, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of July 24 (No. 193) has been received. I have antici- 
pated and have already, as I think, met by previous instructions the re-en- 
forcement of prejudices in Great Britain against the cause of the govern- 



173 

ment and of the country resulting from the disappointment of our first 
demonstrations against Richmond. 

I have nothing more to add to those instructions, except to inform you 
that since their date the reorganization and distribution of our forces have 
been going on quietly and, I believe, skilfully, with a view to decisive oper- 
ations ; that the three hundred thousand volunteers called for are now com- 
ing forward with such alacrity as will probably enable us to dispense with 
the projected draft, and that the other three hundred thousand provided for 
by draft will be in the field as soon as they shall be needed. The soldiers of 
the United States will then be near a million in number. Our naval prepa- 
rations are going forward with vigor, and I trust that we shall not be un- 
ready for any emergency that can happen at home or abroad. The question 
of the status of the inhabitants in the disloyal States will be speedily re- 
solved as the army advances through their territories, which, perhaps, is as 
fast as public opinion in the loyal States will ripen to receive it. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyo., fyc. 



Mr. Snvard to Mr. Adams. 
[Extracts. — Confidential.] 



No. 322.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 13, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of July 31 (No. 191) has been received. 

I remark, with reference to the reports circulated by American traitors in 
London that the Emperor of the French proposes to recognize the insurgents 
without waiting for any new combinations, that there is nothing to confirm 
these reports in any communication, official or unofficial, which has been 
received by us from Paris. We learn from that capital that there, as in 
England, sentiments unfavorable to our cause and our country seem to be 
gaining more general favor under the inculcations of a hostile press. 

In all his communications with this government the Emperor of the French 
has preserved a tone that was frank, friendly, and respectful, letting us 
understand, however, that a strong pressure upon the government was made 
by classes which attributed their sufferings to a deficiency of a supply of 
cotton. The statement by disunionists that the Emperor has directed Mr. 
Slidell to instruct Mr. Mason to make another formal appeal to Earl Russell 
preliminary to his own separate and exclusive action seems improbable. 
Could the cupidity of British merchants resist the temptation to keep peace 
with us if France should go to war alone ? Could France propose to go to 
war with us without Great Britain as an ally ? Is France more ready for 
hazards of war than Great Britain ? 

While we are making ourselves ready, as far as possible, for whatever 
emergency may happen in our foreign relations, and while we sensibly feel 
that the present apparent condition of suspended activity in our military 
operations tends to encourage hostile machinations abroad, we nevertheless 
rely with much confidence on other circumstances for a continuance of 
peace and forbearance 

First. All the world knows that we shall not entertain -any foreign media- 
tion in our domestic affairs; this decision was made known at an e arty 
period, and if we have not repeated it with emphasis, it has been because 



174 

such repetitions would seem disrespectful to foreign powers, and would be 
inconsistent with the proper dignity of this government. 

Secondly. We are supplying Europe with grain and gold, and even cotton, 
to the best of our ability, and no one can safely predict that equal supplies 
could be obtained here or elsewhere if the maritime powers should wage or 
provoke a war with this government. 

Thirdly. Our preparations for continuing the war are. vigorous and suc- 
cessful. On the 15th of this month we shall have enlisted and coming into 
the field three hundred thousand new volunteers for the war, and within 
forty days thereafter this force will be followed by three hundred thousand 
militia, who will be organized as volunteers and will be not less effective. 

The construction of iron-clad ships is going on, on a scale and with a 
vigor that promises as complete a naval defence as any other nation pos- 
sesses. 

When I have told you of our large preparations, I have told you all that 
is important to be known, except that General Halleck evinces great skill, 
activity, and grasp, in reorganizing our forces for renewing military opera- 
tions. Richmond is at this moment the centre of our anxieties. Our plans 
for operations against it are not so-settled and decisive as to allow me to 
commuuicate them, for the reason that they may be modified by discoveries 
of the plans of the insurgents. General Pope had on Saturday, the 9th, a 
successful engagement with a portion of the insurgent army. There is 
every reason to expect important military occurrences, and, perhaps, a de- 
velopment of the plan for a new campaign before the departure of the next 
steamer. 

All that can be said now is, that the popular spirit is sound, and we expect 
that the' tone of public confidence will be highly improved as the new 
levies, now moving from their homes, reach and join and re-enforce the appa- 
rently sedentary forces in their camps. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC, Sj'C, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 323.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 13, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of August 1 (No. 201) has been received. 

Your proceedings in conveying to Earl Russell the explanations concern- 
ing the Mexican question, heretofore confided to you, are approved. 

So also is the action you have taken in regard to the piratical vessels 
Oreto and 290, and our protest against the perversion of the neutral privi- 
leges of the island of Nassau. You will, on proper occasion, make known 
to Earl Russell the satisfaction which the President has derived from the 
just and friendly proceediugs and language of the British government in 
,' craid to these subjects. When we consider how soon this insurrection 
would wither and die when deprived of the sympathies of the British nation 
and the hope of aid which those sympathies, now so active, have awakened; 
how soon commerce would revive; how beneficent, as well as how soothing, 
to the British nation the restoration erf our domestic peace must necessarily 
be; and what hopes for the British race everywhere, and even for civilization 
itself, are treasured up in a necessary harmony and co-operation of the dis- 



175 

tinct families of that race, found on every continent and on so many islands,, 
it seems impossible to account for the hostile disposition of a portion of the 
British people toward the United States, except on the ground of an unne- 
cessary jealousy, which is feeding an unwise and unnatural ambition. 

Your communication with Earl Russell on the subject of New Granada, 
and especially the Isthmus of Panama, including the views expressed by 
him, are entirely satisfactory to the President. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, Sfc, §c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 324. J Department of State, 

Washington, August 14, 1862, 

Sir: Your despatch of July 31 (No. 198) is before me. I confess my sur- 
prise at' the hesitation of the British government in regard to admitting our 
cruisers into their ports in China. The Chinese are engaged in civil war, 
which threatens the safety not only of all western commerce but of the 
foreign residents of whatever country in China. Practically, and by force 
of circumstances, we are allies with the British in protecting this commerce 
and all those residents against the belligerent parties; there never has been, 
and I feel quite assured that there never will be, an insurgent American 
vessel of any kind in the Chinese seas. The exclusion of our vessels, there- 
fore, seems unnecessary upon any ground that the British government has 
assumed, while it is injurious to Great Britain and other western nations, 
as well as the United States. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, <$c, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 326.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 15, .1862. 
< Sir: Complaints having been made through Mr. Stuart, her Britannic Majes- 
ty's charge d'affaires here, of the exaction of bonds on merchandise exported 
from New York for Nassau, explanations upon the subject have been re- 
quested of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

A copy of a letter of the 9th instant, from Mr. Barney to Mr. Chase, is 
herewith enclosed, which contains those explanations. You may, if you 
deem it necessary or proper, communicate a transcript of the sanie to Earl 
Russell. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., So., &c, dee. 



176 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 
[Circular— No. 20.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 18, 1862. 

Sir : Ideas of appeal, mediation, and intervention seem to hold their place 
in the European mind, although their novelty has long since worn off. Our 
representatives abroad, therefore, under the apprehension that some form of 
interference may be attempted or adopted, frequently and urgently ask for 
information concerning the purposes of this government. 

No foreign state has at any time communicated or intimated to us, in any 
way, a design, or even a disposition, to take a new attitude in regard to our 
domestic affairs. Generally the communications which we have received 
have been marked with directness and frankness. It would, therefore, imply 
an unbecoming and even unreal distrust on our part to assume that any 
hostile intentions are indulged by the maritime powers of Europe. 

On the other hand, this government can at no time forget that foreign 
intervention is the] inevitable result of long-continued domestic strife ; nor 
can we forget that the existing attitude of all those powers was assumed 
without their having given us any previous notice; that it is anomalous, and, 
although unintentionally so, it is nevertheless practically unfriendly and 
injurious. The government, moreover, cannot affect to be ignorant that 
disloj'al citizens of the United States are abroad, and that parties and masses 
are agitating Europe to induce or oblige its governments to intervene. 
Beside these circumstances, it must be remembered that the prosecution of 
civil war is attended by accidents which beget misapprehensions and excite 
passions and prejudices in foreign states. It is therefore our duty to act 
as if we supposed that some of the maritime powers, although they are not 
indeed waiting upon occasion, may yet, upon some unexpected vicissitude, 
be found directly or indirectly allied and co-operating with our internal 
enemies. 

I think that the instructions which have issued from this department 
have not left our representatives any room to doubt that it is the determination 
of the government to defend the integrity of the country and maintain the 
Union, under all circumstances and against all who in any case may assail 
them. I think, moreover, that the magnitude and the character of our land and 
naval preparations indicate the same determination, which is the result, not 
•of variable impulses, but of fixed convictions and unchangeable principles. 

Formal declarations of a policy, clearly enough revealed without them, are 
unnecessary and generally injudicious, because they provoke needless and 
often embarrassing criticism and debate. 

Our representatives abroad are nevertheless entitled to understand, and 
-sometimes it may be profitable for them to know, the grounds upon which a 
fixed and important policy is pursued. 

While the nation is convulsed with a civil strife of unexampled propor- 
tions, it would be presumptuous, perilous, and criminal to court or provoke 
foreign wars. Reviewing the whole course of the existing administration, 
I may safely claim that it shows that, even if the government had been left 
at liberty to conduct its foreign relations, altogether irrespectively of the 
oivil war, it would yet have chosen and maintained a policy of peace, harmony, 
and friendship towards all nations. It is certainly our especial care, under 
-existing circumstances, to do no injustice, to give no offence, and to offer 
and receive explanations in a liberal spirit whenever they are possible, and 
.thus to make sure that if, at any time, either accidentally or through the 



177 

intrigues of the insurgents, we shall incur the misfortune of collision with 
foreign states, our position will then be one of pure and reproachless self- 
defence. 

The nation has a right, and it is its duty, to live. Those who favor and 
give aid to the insurrection, upon whatever pretext, assail the nation in an 
hour of danger, and therefore they cannot be held or regarded as its friends. 
In taking this ground, the United States claim only what they concede to 
all other nations. No state can be really independent in any other position. 

Willing, however, to avert difficulties by conciliatory explanations, we 
frankly confess to the conviction that either the insurrection must be subdued 
and suppressed or the nation must perish. The case admits of no composition. 
If we have no fear of failure, it is because we know that no other government 
than this could stand in this country, and that permanent dismemberment of 
it is impossible. The principal masses of the population are content with 
the present system, and cannot be brought to oppose or to surrender it. 
The faction which is attempting to destroy it, although infatuated and 
energetic, is, relatively to the whole people, an inconsiderable one. The 
natural highways of the country, extended sounds and lakes, and long, 
widely branching rivers, combined with its artificial roads, are bonds which 
can neither be removed nor permanently broken by any mere political force 
whatsoever. The so-called Gulf States need the free use of all these high- 
ways, and those who dwell upon their borders will not consent to be shut 
out from the ocean. The wealth and patronage of the whole nation are 
needful to perfect civilization on the Pacific coast, and the Atlantic States 
must forever derive protection and support from the recesses of the continent. 
Those who are attempting to break up the Union must either substitute new 
commercial and social connexions for the highways now existing, or they must 
invent and establish a new political system which will preserve them. Nature 
opposes the former project. The wit of man fails to suggest not merely a 
better political system, having the same objects as the present Union, but 
even any possible substitute for it. 

If it be said that these- arguments are disposed of by the fact that civil 
war has occurred in defiance of them. I answer that the civil war is not yet 
ended. If it be replied that at least there is a manifest danger of dissolution of 
the Union, I rejoin that the occurrence of the civil war at most proves only 
that in this country, as in every other, it is possible for faction to interrupt 
the course of civil administration and to substitute anarchy for law. I do not 
know that any wise man has ever doubted that possibility. Sedition is, 
as I suppose, a vice inherent and latent in every political state. But the 
condition of anarchy is not only anomalous but necessarily a transient one. 
I do not pretend to say how long the deplorable disturbances now existing 
here may continue, nor what extreme the anarchy which prevails in the 
southern part of the country may reach. It may be that the storm may 
continue one or more years longer, and that there may be a dissolution of 
society in that unhappy region. But after such a convulsion every state 
requires repose and again seeks peace, safety, and freedom ; and it will have 
them, if possible, under the political system which is best adapted to those 
ends. Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon, each in his time cast down estab- 
lished states and substituted new ones in their places. Yet the hand 
that made the violent change had hardly been withdrawn when the sub- 
verted states reappeared, standing more firmly than before on their ancient 
foundations. 

It is freely admitted that the salvation of the Union depends on the will 
and the choice of the American people, and that they are now engaged in a 
fierce conflict upon that very question. But sooner or later there must come 
a truce, because civil war cannot be indefinitely endured. Will there then 

12 



178 

be reconciliation ? It cannot happen otherwise. When such a time arrives, 
any society will prefer the attainable to the unattainable object, the greater 
to the lesser advantage, and. will bury every domestic difference to save 
itself from the worst of all political evils — foreign conquest and domination. 
The object of the insurgents is the fortifying and extending of African 
slavery. Is the object, under existing circumstances, really attainable? 
Is it not becoming more manifestly impossible every day that the war is pro- 
longed? Is even the continuance of slavery itself worth the sacrifices 
which the war has brought ? It is assumed that the insurgents, however 
erroneously, are determined upon that point. I reply, that it is always a 
class, or a sect, or a party, and not the whole country, that provokes or 
makes civil war, but it is not the same class or sect or party, but the whole 
country that ultimately makes the peace ; and hence it has happened that 
hardly one out of a hundred attempted revolutions has ever been successful. 
Is not this the instruction of the civil wars of England, France, and San 
Domingo ? 

The consideration that this is a republican state has been heretofore im- 
pressed upon the correspondence of this department, and it cannot be too 
steadily kept in view by our representatives in Europe. Precisely because 
it is both a federal and a republican state, with its cohesion resulting from 
the choice of the people in two distinct processes, the nation must cease to 
exist when a foreign authority is admitted to any control over its counsels. 
It must continue to be jealous of foreign interventions and alliances, as it 
always heretofore has been. 

The nation, moreover, is an American one. It has maintained pleasant 
and even profitable intercourse with the states of the eastern continent ; 
but it nevertheless is situated in a hemisphere where interests and customs 
and habits widely differing from those of Europe prevail. Among these 
differences this one at least is manifest : we neither have sought, nor can 
we ever wisely seek, conquests, colonies, or allies in the Old World. We 
have no voice in the congresses of Europe, and we cannot allow them a 
representation in our popular assemblies. All of the American States once 
were dependencies of European powers. The fact that it is necessary to 
discuss the subject of this letter sufficiently proves that even if those powers 
have relinquished all expectation of recovering a sway here that was so 
long ago cast off, yet the American nations have nevertheless not realized 
their safety against European ambition. For this reason, also, we must be 
left by foreign nations alone, to settle our own controversies and regulate 
our own affairs in our own American way. 

If the forbearance we claim is not our right, those who seek to prevent 
our enjoyment of it can show the grounds upon which foreign intervention 
or mediation is justified. 

Will they claim that European powers are so much more enlightened, 
more just, and more humane than we are, that they can regulate not only 
their own affairs but ours also, more wisely, and more beneficially than we 
have done ? How and where have they proved this superiority ? 

I cannot avoid thinking that the ideas of intervention and mediation have 
their source in an imperfect conception in Europe of the independence of 
the American nation. Although actual foreign authority has so long passed 
away, yet the memory of it, and the sentiment of dictation, still linger in 
the parental European states. Perhaps some of the American nations have, 
by their willingness to accept of favors, lent some sanction to the preten- 
sion. But certainly this will not be urged against the United States. 

We have too many proofs that our independence is by no means pleasing 
to portions of European society. They would, however, find it difficult to 
justify their dislike. That independence was lawfully won, and it has been 
universally acknowledged. 



179 

Is our peculiar form of government an offence ? It was chosen by our- 
selves and for our own benefit, and it has not been enforced by us, nor can 
it in any case be enforced, upon any other people. Our own experience has 
proved its felicitous adaptation to our condition, and the judgment of man- 
kind has pronounced that its influences upon other nations are beneficent. 
The severest censure has found no defect in it, except that it is too good to 
endure. 

What plea for intervention or mediation remains ? Only this, that our 
civil war is inconvenient to foreign states. But the inconvenience they suffer 
is only incidental, and must be brief ; while their intervention or mediation 
might be fatal to the United States. Are not all civil wars necessarily 
inconvenient to foreign nations ? Must every state, when it has the mis- 
fortune to fall into civil war, forego its independence and compromise its 
sovereignty because the war affects its foreign commerce ? Would not the 
practice upon that principal result in the dissolution of all political society ? 

But it is urged that the war is protracted. What if it were so ? Do our 
national rights depend on the time that an insurrection may maintain itself? 
It has been a war of fifteen months. The battle field is as large as Europe. 
The dynamical question involved is as important as any that was ever com- 
mitted to the issue of civil war. The principles at issue are as grave as 
any that ever were intrusted to the arbitration of arms. The resources 
opened by the government, the expenditures incurred, the armies brought 
into the field, and the vigorand diligence with which they are manoeuvred, have 
never been surpassed ; nor has greater success, having due regard to the 
circumstances of the case, ever been attained. 

Notwithstanding these facts, Europeans tell us that the task of subduing 
the insurrection is too great, that the conclusion is already foregone, and 
the Union must be lost. They fail, however, to satisfy us of either their 
right or their ability to advise upon it, while they no longer affect to con- 
ceal the prejudices or the interests which disqualify them for any judg- 
ment in the case. 

Finally, the advocates of intervention are shocked by the calamities we 
are enduring, and concerned by the debts we are incurring, yet they have 
not one word of remonstrance or discouragement for the insurgents, and 
are busy agents in supplying them with materials of war. We deplore the 
sufferings which the war has brought, and are ready and anxious to end the 
contest. We offer the simple terms of restoration to the Union, and 
oblivion of the crimes committed against it so soon as may be compatible 
with the public safety. 

I have expressed these views of the President to our i*epresentatives at 
this time, when I think there is no immediate danger of foreign intervention, 
or attempt at mediation, to the end that they may have their due weight 
whenever, in any chances of the war, apprehensions of foreign interference 
may recur. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 321.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 18, 1862. 

Sir: I write a few words while the mail is closing. General Halleck, upon 
taking command of the army, made a careful survey of the entire military 



180 

position, and concluded thereupon to withdraw the army of the Potomac 
from the Peninsula, and to combine all our forces in front of Richmond. The 
measure was a difficult and delicate one. It is believed to have been sub- 
stantially accomplished without any casualty. Our new levies are coming 
in in great numbers and in fine spirits. The gloom has passed away from 
the public mind. Although our arrangements for resuming offensive opera- 
tions are yet incomplete, we have much confidence in being able to do so 
speedily and with decisive effect. 

The disturbed condition of affairs in New Orleans is giving way slowly, 
and commerce is reviving there. 

Discontents, which naturally enough found utterance in the loyal States 
in a brief season of despondency through which we have passed, have died 
away already, and with them the apprehensions of organizations to embar- 
rass the Union. It is represented to us that the popular determination to 
maintain the war has at no time been as unanimous and as earnest as it is 
now. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, fyc, §c, Sfc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 208.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 22, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception in due course, since 
the date of my last, of despatches from the department numbered 305 to 
318, both inclusive, together with one marked confidential, and not num- 
bered, dated the 2d of August. 

The tenor of these papers, and especially of Nos. 308, 314, and of that 
marked " confidential," is such as completely to answer the purposes of my 
inquiries. I am now in no doubt as to the course it will be my duty to pur- 
sue under any of the contingencies which are likely to occur. 

In the meantime the state of things here is not materially changed. The 
ministers have, most of them, left town, and little is done excepting the 
formal business ordinarily transacted through the agency of the subordinates 
left in charge. For this reason I have been in some doubt how to proceed 
in executing the instructions contained in No. 306, of the 24th of July, 
and in No. 316, of the 4th of August, so far as they relate to objects to be 
gained by personal conference with the minister. On the whole, I have de- 
termined upon formal action in the first place, the nature of which will be 
more fully set forth in separate despatches devoted to the respective subjects. 

The character of the news received from America is regarded as so un- 
favorable to us as materially to affect the views of policy proper to be 
adopted here. It is now hoped that the rebels will be able to sustain them- 
selves without the necessity of any other than moral support. This sensi- 
bly relieves us from the immediate probability of movement in any form. 

You will have seen before this the publication made by Lord Russell of 
your despatch No. 260, a copy of which I communicated to him so long ago 
as the 19th of June last, and also of his own note to Mr. Stuart, of the 28th 
of July, taking notice of it. The whole proceeding must be admitted to 
be not a little anomalous. His lordship received a copy of the paper from 
me, which was furnished only for his information and for that of his 
government. He holds it for more than a month without even acknowledg- 
ing its existence, when all of a sudden, on intimation of the probability of a 



181 

call for information in the House of Lords, he seizes the occasion not to 
write to me, hut to address a species of reply to Mr. Stuart, at Washington, 
based upon the intelligence received of some reverses in America, which 
seem then, for the first time, to be caught at as a justification for continuing 
in the old line of policy, and then causes both to be published forthwith. 
This singular proceeding has subjected his lordship to some sharpness of 
■criticism even here. 

I have indeed been told, but not by authority such as to place the matter 
altogether beyond a doubt, that your despatch, in connexion with preceding 
ones likewise communicated, and other considerations, had had so much 
effect on the ministry as to incline them to leave open a way to the revisal 
of their former policy, depending on the issue of the movement upon Rich- 
mond. Had that been successful, the recognition of belligerent rights was 
to have been withdrawn. I do not vouch for this as true, but, at any rate, 
it would fully explain the cause, both of the earlier delay and of the later 
action. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, I). G. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No, 210.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 22, 1862. 

Sir: In obedience to instructions contained in your despatch No. 312, I 
have addressed a note to Earl Russell, a copy of which is herewith trans- 
mitted, giving the assent of the government to the propositions made by 
him for better securing the proper execution of the late treaty in suppres- 
sion of the slave trade. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, August 22, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to inform your lordship that I have now re- 
ceived instructions from the government of the United States to reply to the 
note received by me from you on the 17th of July, making certain proposi- 
tions connected with the execution of the sixth and seventh articles of the 
late treaty for the further suppression of the slave trade. 

I am directed to say that, in accordance with your lordship's suggestion 
made in that note, the government will issue passports or safe conducts in 
the cases specified of vessels of the United States legally employed on the 
African coast, which will, until further notice, be signed only by the Secre- 
tary of State of the United States. Instructions proper for executing this 
new arrangement, so far as British vessels are concerned, will likewise be 



182 

immediately given to regulate the action of naval commanders of the United- 
States accordingly. 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, fyc., SfC. 8fC. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 331.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 25, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of the Tth of August, No. 205, has been received. 
Before its arrival the correspondence of Earl Russell with the Liverpool 
merchants, which accompanied the despatch, had reached us through the 
foreign press, and has been published here. 

The position taken in it by her Majesty's government, when it is con- 
sidered in connexion with antecedent events, is regarded by the President 
with much satisfaction. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, SfC., fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 211.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 29, 1862. 

Sir: Since the date of my last, I have received from the department 
despatches Nos. 319 and 320. 

The most interesting events of the week are connected with the move- 
ments of Garibaldi in southern Italy. It is obvious thus far that the 
popular sympathy is entirely with him, and that it affects even the military 
and naval forces directed by the government against him. The effect of 
this state of things upon the relations of France and Great Britain is so 
much apprehended as to give rise to uneasiness on both sides of the channel. 
The first indication of it here is the sudden return of Lord Russell to London. 
This may, however, be likewise connected with the fact of the approaching 
departure of the Queen to the continent. I do not as yet apprehend any 
immediate consequences to the peace of Europe. There are so many reasons 
operating upon all the Powers to deter them from active measures that every 
means will be resorted to for the purpose of escaping the difficulty. At the 
same time it is not to be disguised that the position of the French Emperor 
is becoming more and more critical every day, both at home and abroad. 
Any attempt to take the settlement of the Italian embroglio into his own 
hands will be likely to involve him in embarrassments far more ruinous than 
he has ever encountered before. On the other hand, the overthrow of the 
present arrangement is almost equally dangerous. The rapid march of 
events will so soon dispose of this matter as to render mere speculation 
upon it superfluous. The temporary effect on the interests of the United 
States is rather one of relief, as the public attention is diverted from our 
affairs. The idea of intervention seemes rather to lose than gain strength. 



183 

with the progress of events. And, although the spirit in England cannot 
be said to be in any degree changed, it seems rather to waste itself in ab- 
stract lamentation on the existence of a remote evil, than to gather force 
for any particular mode of dealing with it. 

I am glad to learn that the desired addition of volunteers will soon be in 
the hands of the government. The spirit with which the country has met 
the great trials of this struggle is admirable. Severe as has been the dis- 
appointment in the issue of what was reasonably expected to be the termi- 
nation of the contest, I cannot perceive that its conditions have, as yet, been 
materially modified by that event. In the end it may perhaps be fortunate 
that the whole of it should be concentrated at a single point, and that point 
the seat of the rebel authority. With unity of direction and concert in exe- 
cution it may be hoped that the operations of our superior forces will com- 
mand ultimate success. Uncertain as is proverbially the fortune of war, it 
seldom fails to crown the efforts of a persevering people willing to learn 
wisdom from experience. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, I). G. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 214.] Legation op the United States, 

London, September 4, 1862. 

Sir: Since the date of my last despatches from the department have been 
received, numbering from 321 to 327, both inclusive, and likewise printed 
circulars Nos. 18 and 19, of the 8th of August, relating to passports and 
emigrants. 

Lord Russell came to town a few days ago, and sent me a note requesting 
to see me. I went, accordiugly, on Saturday last. He said he wanted to 
make some observations to me in connexion with the case of the steamer 
Adela, the capture of which had given rise to some questions at Washington. 
These related to three points, the appeal to any list of suspected vessels 
that might be in the hands of the officers as ground of capture, the propriety 
of making a prior examination, and the securing the contents of mail bags. 
On all of them he admitted that you had already agreed to a plan to remedy 
the difficulties for the future, which was perfectly satisfactory. He then 
remarked that in the accounts given of the capture, the commander was 
reported to have quoted me as justifying his course on the ground that Lord 
Palmerston had told me we might catch such vessels if we could. He then 
read from a note of his lordship's in his hands a request to call my attention 
to this statement and a disclaimer of any such language, and a very calm and 
reasonable statement of what he recollected to have said on the only occa- 
sion when he had conversed with me on the subject. I immediately replied 
by disavowing ever having attributed to his lordship any such words. So 
far as I could remember the facts at this distance of time, the conversation 
referred to had grown out of the arrival of the James Adger, about the ob- 
jects of which he desired to ask me. After mentioning the Nashville, I had 
alluded to the Gladiator, a steamer then about to sail from London with 
contraband of war for rebel ports, and said that in my interview with the 
captain of the Adger I had advised him on his way home to look out for the 
latter vessel and catch her if he could. To this course I presumed his lord- 



184 

ship would have no objection. To this remark Lord Palmerston had replied 
substantially as explained in his note just read. It was now so long since 
the conference that this was all I could recall of it at the moment, but I had 
a copy of my despatch on the subject home, which would give the facts more 
certainly. The only thing which surprised me about the matter was how 
the commander of the vessel came to quote me at all, for I had no communica- 
tion with him, nor indeed with any one else, on that subject, excepting 
through the regular official channel, as I had already mentioned it. Here 
the conversation dropped, and no other topic was started by his lordship. I 
seized the opportunity, however, briefly to give the substance of your 
despatch (No. 306) of the 24th of July, touching the restrictions imposed at 
New York upon the trade with Nassau, and to offer to furnish his lordship 
copies of the correspondence attached to it. His lordship observed that 
some of the articles referred to in the letter of the collector seemed to be 
contraband of war, thereby apparently distinguishing these from the general 
restriction. He said he should be glad to receive the copies. I have since 
transmitted them, together with others on the same subject, received the 
next day with your despatch (No. 326) of the 15th of August, in a note of 
the 1st of September, a copy of which is sent herewith. 

Mr. Milner Gibson was present throughout the interview. This was 
owing to the fact the new commercial treaty with Belgium, in which both 
were empowered to take part, was just in the process of receiving the sig- 
natures. 

His lordship, who seemed quite amiable, remarked to me that he pre- 
sumed I was now quite at ease in regard to any idea of joint action of the 
European powers in our affairs. I laughed, and said that I was in hopes 
that they all had quite too much to occupy their minds in the present condi- 
tion of southern Europe to think of troubling themselves with matters on 
the other side of the Atlantic. This was in allusion to the affair of Garibaldi, 
which is known to have much stirred the governments on both sides of the 
channel. 

His lordship then notified me of his departure for Germany for a few 
weeks, in attendance upon the Queen, during which time Mr. Layard would 
be 'ready to attend to any business I might desire to present. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, September 1, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to transmit copies of papers explaining the 
measures takeu at the New York custom-house to regulate the exportation 
of merchandise to Nassau, to which I referred in our conference of Saturday 
last. Since that time I have received a later despatch from my government, 
covering other papers relating to the same subject. Copies of these I like- 
wise submit. 

Renewing the assurances of my highest consideration, I have the honor 
to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c., &c, &c. 



185 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 216.] Legation of the United States, 

London, September 4, 1862. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit a copy of a note received from Earl 
Russell, v dated the 28th of August, in acknowledgment of the prompt action 
of the government in response to his suggestion for the more perfect execu- 
tion of the late treaty on the slave trade. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, August 28, 1862. 

Sir: I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22d in- 
stant, informing me that the government of the United States acquiesce in 
the suggestions which I had the honor to make to you in my letter of the 
ltth of July last, in reference to the issuing of passports or safe conducts 
to vessels legally employed on the African coast; and I have, in reply, to 
request that you will express to Mr. Seward the acknowledgments of her 
Majesty's government for the prompt compliance on the part of the United 
States government with the suggestions of her Majesty's government in 
this matter. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 219.] Legation of the United States, 

London, September 5, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit the copy of a note addressed to me by 
Lord Russell, touching the case of the steamer Oreto at Nassau, with the 
accompanying papers. It is a little remarkable that, with the exception of 
a single sentence, not an intimation is given in them by the respective par- 
ties of a consciousness of the real destination of that vessel. I have sent 
to Mr. Dudley, at Liverpool, to know if more decisive evidence might not 
be obtained in other quarters. 

I presume that Mr. Dudley keeps the government fully informed of the 
change of the chrysalis 290 into the butterfly Alabama, on a piratical cruise 
against American shipping. It turned out, as I expected, that she did not 
go to Nassau. Her difficulty will be to keep supplied with coals. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



186 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 

Foreign Office, August 29, 1862. 

Sir: With reference to the case of the steamer Ore to, which you are prob- 
ably aware, has been seized at Nassau and is to be tried before the admiralty 
court of the Bahamas for a breach of the foreign enlistment act, I have the 
honor to enclose for your information copies of a report and its enclosures 
from the commissioners of customs with reference to a suggestion I had 
made to the treasury, that a competent officer should be sent to Nassau to 
give evidence as to what occurred at Liverpool in the case of that vessel. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, tyc., fyc. 



No. 439.] Custom-House, August 25, 1862. 

To the lords commissioners of her Majesty's treasury: 

Your lords having, by Mr. Hamilton's letters of 20th instant, transmitted 
to us, with reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the gun- 
boat Oreto, which was fitted out at Liverpool and has since been captured 
by her Majesty's steamer Greyhound at Nassau for an alleged violation of 
the foreign enlistment act, copy of a letter from the foreign office and of its 
enclosure on the subject of the proceeding to be adopted in the matter, and 
requested that he would take the necessary steps for sending to Nassau 
some gentleman connected with the department competent to afford the in- 
formation required in the case, we beg to transmit, for the information of 
your lords, copies of the report of our collector at Liverpool, with whom we 
have been in communication on the subject, together with copies of the 
statements of Mr. Morgan, the surveyor, and Mr. Lloyd, the examining officer, 
who visited and kept watch on the Oreto from the time that suspicions were 
first entertained of her being fitted for the so-called Confederate States until 
she sailed from the port, together with copy of the statement on oath of Air. 
Parry, the pilot who had charge of the ship from the time she left the Tox- 
teth dock until she left the Mersey; and, as from these papers the pilot 
would appear to be the most fitting person to give evidence in the case, we 
beg to be favored with your lords' further instructions as to the person who 
should be directed to proceed to Nassau. 

F. GOULBURN. 

R. H. GREY. 



Report of the collector at Liverpool, August 23, 1862. 

Honorable Sirs: It will be seen from the annexed statement of Mr. Mor- 
gan, surveyor, that he will be able to state the fact of the vessel being built 
by Messrs. Miller & Sons, and of the absence of all warlike stores on board 
when she left the docks, while the evidence of Mr. Lloyd, the examining offi- 
cer, fully supports the statement of the pilot, Mr. Parry, which, from its im- 
portance, I have taken on oath, as it appears to me he would be the most 
fitting person to give evidence of the absence of all warlike stores on board 
the vessel when she left this country. 



187 

I am satisfied that she took no such stores on board, and indeed it is- 
stated, though I know not on what authority, that her armament was con- 
veyed in another vessel to Nassau. The board will, therefore, perceive that 
the evidence to be obtained from this port will all go to prove that she left 
Liverpool altogether unarmed, and that while here she had in no way violated 
the law. 

S. PRICE EDWARDS. 



Statement of Mr. Ed. Morgan, surveyor in her Majesty's custom-house at the- 

port of Liverpool. 

I am one of the surveyors of customs at this port. Pursuant to instruc- 
tions I received from the collector on the 21st of February, in the present 
year, and at subsequent dates, I visited the steamer Oreto, at various 
times, when she was being fitted out in the dock close to the yard of Messrs. 
Miller & Sons, the builders of the vessel. I continued this inspection, from 
time to time, until she left the dock, and I am certain that when she went 
into the river she had no warlike stores of any kind whatever on board. 

After she went into the river she was constantly watched by the boarding 
officers, who were directed to report to me whenever any goods were taken 
on board; but in reply to my frequent inquiries they stated nothipg was put 
in the ship but coal. 

ED. MORGAN, Surveyor. 



Statement of Mr. Henry Lloyd, examining officer in her Majesty's customs at 

the port of Liverpool. 

In consequence of instructions received from Mr. Morgan, surveyor, I, in 
conjunction with the other three surveyors of the river, kept watch on the 
proceedings of the vessel Oreto from the time she left the Toxteth dock, on 
the 4th March last, till the day she sailed, the 22d of the same month. On 
one occasion I was alongside of her, and spoke to her, Parry, the pilot, and 
the chief mate. Neither I nor any of the other river surveyors saw at any 
time any arms or warlike ammunition of any kind taken on board, and we 
are perfectly satisfied that none such was taken on board during her stay in 
the river. 

H. LLOYD, Examining Officer. 



Statement, on oath, of Mr. Wm. Parry, master pilot in No. 10 boat in the port 
of Liverpool, taken by the collector of customs. 

I was the pilot in charge of the ship Oreto when she left the Toxteth dock 
on the 4th of March, 1862. I continued on board to the day of her sailing, 
which was the 22d of the same month, and never left her save on Sunday, 
when all work was suspended. I saw the ship before the coals and provi- 
sions were taken into her. There were no munitions of war in her — that is- 
to say, she had no guns, carriages, shot, shell, or powder. Had there been 
any on board I must have seen it. I piloted the ship out of the Mersey to 
Point Lynas, off Anglesea, where I left her, and she proceeded down chan- 
nel, since when she has not returned. Fi'om the time the vessel left the 
river until I left her she had no communication with the shore or with any 



188 

other vessel for the purpose of receiving- anything like a cargo on board. I 
frequently saw Mr. Lloyd, the tide surveyor, alongside the ship while in the 
river. 

WM. PARRY. 

Sworn before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 23d day, 1862 

S. PRICE EDWARDS, Collector. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 336.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 8, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of 
August 22, No. 208. 

Mr. Stuart read to me, in due time, the note which Earl Russell had ad- 
dressed to him on the 28th day of July, commenting upon the despatch No. 
260, which I wrote to you so long ago as the 28th day of May last, and 
which you so properly and promptly put into his hands on the 20th of June 
last. But Mr. Stuart seemed not to have been instructed to leave a copy 
with me, and for obvious reasons I did not solicit one. 

His lordship's proceedings in leaving the paper submitted to him unno- 
ticed until all expectation of special attention to it was given up, and in 
then taking it up, under a supposed change of affairs in this country, and 
making it the basis of instruction to Mr. Stuart here, in vindication of the 
British government, instead of giving an answer through you to the appeal 
contained in the paper, was indeed extraordinary. It did not, however, 
seem necessary for any national interest of ours to take special notice of 
these proceedings. They were at the time attributed by this government to 
some new political domestic pressure upon the ministry of Great Britain, 
and I am happy to learn that, according to the best information which we 
have been able to obtain, such was the case. I shall add only, that however 
necessary Earl Russell's course in the matter may have been in regard to 
British interests at home, and however beneficial it may have been to them, 
it has not made a favorable impression in this country, or produced a con- 
viction here of the friendly feelings and dispositions towards us on the part 
of Great Britain, which his lordship has so generously, and doubtless with 
entire sincerity, avowed. 

You will have learned, before this despatch shall reach you, that our late 
campaign in Virginia has failed; that the insurgent forces, escaping our 
armies, have returned to the occupation of Northern Virginia; and have 
even crossed the upper Potomac and taken up a position at Frederick, in 
Maryland, where they seem to be threatening alike Washington, Baltimore, 
and Harrisburgh. In a correspondence like this, which, however confiden- 
tial in its character, still wears an aspect of being addressed to foreign 
governments, it would be indiscreet and injudicious to attempt to explain 
the causes of this very serious reverse. I must be content, therefore, with 
saying that it seems to have resulted from the fact that our two reunited 
armies in Virginia were only partially combined and not at all consolidated. 
There has been, at least, military error somewhere, and an inquiry has been 
instituted to ascertain where it lies, and with whom the responsibility for 
the reverse belongs. 

Our information from the west is that the insurgents are equally bold and 
adventurous in that quarter, and that although no great disaster has occur- 
red there, new energies of the government are necessary to save the States 



189 

of Tennessee and Kentucky for the Union, if not to prevent inroads into 
Ohio. 

It is not deemed necessary or even practicable, in an emergency where 
every hour may bring reasons for changes of measures before adopted, to 
attempt to give you a programme of intended military operations. I con- 
fine myself, therefore, to the statement, in general terms, that our armies in 
Virginia are at last fully consolidated, and that they are already in the 
positions deemed most advantageous for the restoration of the fortunes of 
the war. The same is true of our forces elsewhere. The three hundred 
thousand volunteers called for by the President have already been mustered 
in the service, and near half of them are in the field. Recruiting still goes 
on with the utmost spirit, and a considerable portion of the three hundred 
thousand men expected to be raised by draft are already coming forward as 
volunteers. The draft will fill up the complement without great delay. No- 
where, neither on the part of the army, nor of the people, does there appear 
the least sign of indecision or of despondency, although, of course, the 
country is, for the moment, filled with deep anxiety. 

We hear, officially and unofficially, of great naval preparations which 
are on foot in British and other foreign ports, under cover of neutrality, to 
give to the insurgents a naval force. Among these reports is one that a 
naval armament is fitting out in England to lay New York under contribu- 
tion. I think that the vigor of our naval department in building a navy 
upon a sudden emergency can hardly be surpassed; nevertheless, its pro- 
gress seems slow to us, under the circumstances. In addition to the Monitor 
and other iron vessels, already known to you, we have the Ironsides now 
ready for duty, and a new Monitor is expected to be put into service within 
the next ten days. Others will soon follow, and we are doing what we can 
to be prepared for every possible adverse contingency that can affect the 
situation of the country either at home or abroad. We cannot but regret 
that the course of administration in Great Britain in such as to render our 
relations with that country a source of constant and serious apprehension. 
But it is not perceived here what more can be done than we are doing to 
preserve an international peace, which, perhaps, cannot be sufficiently 
valued until, without fault on our part, it shall have been broken. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc, 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 
[Extracts.] 



No. 221.] Legation of the United States, 

London, September 12, 1862. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches numbered 328 to 
334, both inclusive; likewise of printed circular No. 21, respecting aid to 
be rendered to the New York Geographical Society, and two copies of the 
United States Statutes at Large for the year 1861-62. The information fur- 
nished of the progress of the war is valuable, and the exposition of the views 
of the government in its foreign relations is of a most interesting character, 
and cannot fail to inspire unity of thought and action among the agents 
of the country abroad, wherever they may be. Nothing has occurred 
during the past week to vary the aspect of things in this country. There 
are announcements of increasing distress among the operatives, as the 



190 

growing scarcity of cotton has the effect of closing more of the mills. On 
the other hand the rapid advance in price has so far stimulated the search 
for the article as to justify the expectation of a considerable addition to the 
supply from India. I am therefore inclined to believe that we are at the 
crisis of the difficulty, and from this time things will rather mend than grow 
worse. Thus far it has not been possible to give a political direction to the 
•uneasiness which exists. A good deal has been done both by public and 
private assistance to alleviate the suffering of the poorer classes. The 
anxiety about the crops has been quieted, partly by the prevalence of fine 
•weather during the harvest, and partly by the extensive importation of 
breadstuffs from America, which puts an end to the apprehension of famine 
prices. In the general trade of the country there seems to be increased 
activity, which, to a corresponding extent, neutralizes the unfavorable in- 
fluence from America. 

The condition of matters on the continent is still regarded with not a 
little inquietude. The suppression of the indiscreet outbreak of Garibaldi 
has not been attended by the restoration of confidence in the established 
order of things in Italy. There is an obvious increase of the popular pres- 
sure upon the Emperor of France for the withdrawal of his force at Rome, 
which has not been thus far attended by any symptoms of yielding on his 

The breaking out of the insurrection has brought to light the existence 
of national feelings [in England] towards them, [the United States,] the 
strength of which had scarcely been suspected in America. As the struggle 
has gone on, the nature and extent of them has become so clear and unmis- 
takeable as to defy all disavowal. Having their root in the same appre- 
hensions of the force of a foreign state which exists in the case of France, 
they take the same direction towards efforts to curtail, if not to neutralize, 
its energies. The popular sentiment of Great Britain, as now developed, 
should be a warning to the statesmen of America by which to regulate 
their action, at least for two generations. It dictates the necessity of union 
at home far more imperatively even than the wretchedness which now fills 
the country with grief from end to end. It ought to open the eyes of all 
the honest but deluded citizens who have imagined . that in resisting the 
authority of the federal government they are only endeavoring to substitute 
one kind of domestic sovereignty for another. The fact is that they are 
ignorantly conducing to the interposition of a wholly foreign and opposite 
influence, which has no sympathy in common with America, and which seeks 
only to base its own interests more firmly upon the decay of those of other 
nations. To attempt to counteract this policy by angry remonstrance or a 
resort to violence would be idle, if not worse. The true remedy would be 
to effect the restoration of peace and harmony, the revival of our habits of 
productive industry, and the return of vigor to the action of one government 
• over all, inspiring confidence at home and a salutary fear as well as respect 
among the malevolent abroad. 

But if it should turn out that the malignant spirits among us prove to 
have so far confirmed their authority among their countrymen in some 
■ quarters as to render these results impracticable, then does the manifesta- 
tion of these British proclivities open a still further question for the con- 
sideration of America. They point significantly to the future encourage- 
ment of a social organization approximated to us as closely as possible, 
which, because animated by the bitterest hostility to us may hence become a 
ready instrument to effect the object of finally annulling our influence. Thus 
hemmed in between the north and the south, both almost equally guided by 
British policy, the United States may cease to inspire that dread of their 
future expansion which seems to haunt the minds of their statesmen of the 
present day. The mode of counteracting these dangerous tendencies is 



191 

deserving of most careful consideration. To permit the establishment of 
any such authority to the south of us as that indicated seems to be out of 
the question. It would be far wiser to determine that rather than this the 
social basis upon which it is designed to maintain it should be, once for all, 
removed. Whatever might be the hesitation to act whilst the question 
remained confined within purely domestic considerations, it will cease the 
moment that any extraneous element of foreign agency shall be introduced. 
Great Britain, after wielding the moral considerations of the slave question 
for many years for the purpose of stimulating our domestic dissensions, 
cannot be allowed to complete her work by upholding a slaveborn authority 
as a perpetual check upon our prosperity. All the considerations of our 
safety in the distant future forbid the idea The whole case changes its 
character the moment we come to look at it in this new light. Its moral 
become not less momentous than its political aspects. The position of the 
two nations is thus made antagonistic on a great issue of principle, and the 
protection of the great idea of human liberty becomes more than ever 
before the bounden duty of the United States. 

I have been led into this course of reflection insensibly by the incidental 
exposition of the gradually spreading antipathy to us among the people of 
this city and kingdom, as it has been shown by the reception of General 
Pope's announcement that we have gained a victory. Here it is viewed in 
the light of a disaster, and great efforts are made to discredit it. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 340.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 13, 1862. 

Sir: Mr. Morse, our indefatigable consul at London, has transmitted to 
this department an intercepted letter written by S. H. Mallory, who is the 
pretended secretary of the navy to the insurrectionary party in the south, 
and addressed to James H. North, who is called a commander in that navy. 
The letter shows that at least two steamers, the Oreto and the Florida, have 
been actually built, fitted up in England for the insurgents, and despatched 
with armaments and military stores from British ports-to make war upon 
the United States. Mr. Morse has informed me that he intended to submit 
the letter to you, and it is probable that you will have taken a copy of it. 
For greater certainty, however, a copy is sent you with this despatch. It 
is thought expedient that you give a copy of it to Earl Russell. Hitherto 
the British authorities have failed to prevent such transactions, assigning 
as the reason a want of authentic evidence of the illegal character and pur- 
poses of the vessels which you have denounced. It will perhaps be useful 
to give the government this unquestionable evidence of the infraction of the 
neutrality laws, in the very two cases of which you have already complained 
without success. Although these two vessels are now beyond the reach of 
British authority, the evidence which shows that they ought to have been 
detained may possibly lend some probability to new complaints in regard 
to other vessels of a similar character now being built in England. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, f 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, Sfc. 



192 



S. H. Mallory to James H. North. 

Confederate States of America, 
Navy Department, Richmond, July 12, 1862. 

Sir: Your letter of the 29th of March last reached me this morning. 

The department notified you, on the 11th of January last, that you would 
receive orders to command the second vessel then being built in England, 
but for reasons satisfactory to the department you were subsequently as- 
signed to the command of the first vessel, the Florida, (Oreto,) now at 
Nassau; and any just ground for "the surprise and astonishment" in this 
respect at the department's action is not perceived. 

A commission as commander for the war was sent you on the 5th of May, 
and your failure to follow the Oreto, which left England about the 21st of 
March, and to take command of her as was contemplated, and as you were 
apprised by Captain Bullock, on the 26th of March, is not understood, and 
has been productive of some embarrassment. 

Captain Bullock was nominated by the executive for his position in the 
navy under existing law, and was duly confirmed by the Senate, and your 
protest to this department against the action of these co-ordinate branches 
of your government is out of place. 

Upon the receipt of this letter you will turn over to Lieutenant G. F. Sin- 
clair the instructions which you may have received, together with any public 
funds in your hands, and return to the confederate States in such manner as 
your judgment may direct. 

Should you not be provided with funds for this purpose, Commander Bul- 
lock will, upon your application, supply them. 
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

S. H. MALLORY, 

Secretary of the Navy. 

Commander James H. North, 

C. S. N., London, England. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 341.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 15, 1862. 

Sir: Just at the moment when the mail is about to close authentic infor- 
mation reaches the government that the insurgent forces which have been 
approaching and menacing Cincinnati and Louisville have receded, and are 
retreating in Kentucky. The alarm in that quarter has passed. 

The press has already announced that the insurgent army, which has been 
threatening Washington, Baltimore, and Pennsylvania, evacuated Frederick 
on the 12th instant. I now give you a despatch which has just been re- 
ceived from Major General McClellan, which shows the position of the two 
armies at the present moment. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, §c, fyc. 



193 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 345.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 15, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of August 29 (No. 211) has been received. Since it 
was written, information, hastened by telegraph, lias reached the country 
that Garibaldi has been wounded and captured by a French force on the 
coast of Calabria, and conveyed a prisoner to Spezzia. This event would 
seem sufficient to arrest the revolutionary movement which so lately threat- 
ened the peace of Europe. Nevertheless it remains a question of much in- 
terest whether the agitation will immediately go down or reveal itself in 
some new demonstrations of sympathy with its representative in his deten- 
tion and sufferings. 

Advices from Mexico do not encourage the belief that there will be any 
real submission to the French or any practical acquiescence in any new 
government they may succeed in establishing there. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., $fc, fyc, 8fC. 

n - 





Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 34*7.] Department oe State, 

Washington, September 15, 1862. 

Sir: I herewith enclose for your information a copy of a despatch, (No. 
214.) of this date, to Mr. Dayton, giving, among other things, the substance 
of a report recently received from General Shepley, governor of Louisiana, 
showing the entire freedom of the cotton market in New Orleans. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, SfC., fyc. 

(The despatch above referred to is placed, according to date, in the cor- 
respondence with France, in this series.) 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 349.] • Department of State, 

Washington, September 15, 1862. 

Sir : Since my previous despatches were put into the mail General Mc- 
Clellan reports that the battle yesterday mentioned in his telegram proves 
to have been a complete victory. The enemy was routed, and he fled during 
the night. McClellan is in pursuit. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, §c, SfC. 

13 



194 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 351.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 17, 1862. 

Sir: I enclose for your information an extract from a despatch of the 9th 
of June last from the minister resident of the United States in Japan, rela- 
tive to the cordial relations existing between himself and the ministers of 
England and France in that empire. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, fyc, 8f3. 

(The extract above referred to will be found under the head of "Japan," 
in this series.) 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 353.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 19, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of September 4, (No 214,) has been received. It sets 
forth a conversation which had recently been held between yourself and 
Earl Russell, in which explanations were exchanged concerning a statement 
said to have been made by J. M. Frailey, commander of the United States 
steamer Quaker City, at the time of his capture of the Adela, to the effect 
that you had justified his alleged course in making captures of all vessels 
which have been indicated to him as suspected ones by the Secretary of the 
Navy; and that you had stated as the ground of the justification that Lord 
Palmerston had told you that the American naval authorities might catch all 
such vessels if they could. 

The explanations and disclaimers which you made in reply seem to have 
been as satisfactory to Earl Russell as they were just. 

I have referred to your despatch of the 15th of November last, in which 
you gave to this department an account of your interview and conversation 
with Lord Palmerston, on the subject of the appearance of the American ship- 
of-war the James Adger in British waters, the only one in which you have 
given me any relation of any interview with Lord Palmerston in regard to 
the operations of enforcing the blockade, or to violations of the neutrality 
laws. I find nothing in that despatch that could be construed so as to war- 
rant the statement concerning Lord Palmerston imputed to the crew. I find, 
also, that the despatch was marked confidential, that it has never been pre- 
sented nor even referred to the Navy Department. It results that this report 
does not originate from any communications you have ever made to this 
department. 

I apprehended, rather, that if the statement has indeed been made by 
Commander Frailey, he must have given it upon some one of the thousand 
rumors which the press of both countries is in a habit of publishing as a 
part of the news of the day. 

With a view to prevent any misunderstanding upon the subject, I will ask 
the Secretary of the Navy to communicate to the admiral of the blockading 
squadron so much of the despatch now before me as relates to the crew's 
report, and I will further ask him to call Commander Frailey's attention to 



195 

the subject, and to ask him for such explanation concerning the crew's state- 
ment attributed to him as he may be able to give. 

You may, if you think expedient, show this despatch to Lord Palmerston, 
as nothing would be further from the desire of this government than to do 
him or the government over which he presides injustice in any form 
whatever. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, 8fC. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 
[Circular.] 



Department of State, 
Washington, September 22, 1862. 

To the diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in foreign countries : 

Gentlemen: You will receive by the post which conveys this despatch 
evidences that the aggressive movement of the insurgents against the loyal 
States is arrested, and that the renewed and reinvigorated forces of the 
Union are again prepared for a new and comprehensive campaign. If you 
consult the public journals you will easily learn that the financial strength 
of the insurrection is rapidly declining, and that its ability to bring soldiers 
into the field has been already taxed to its utmost. You will perceive, on 
the other hand, that the fiscal condition of the country is sound, and that 
the response to the calls for new levies is being made promptly, without 
drawing seriously upon the physical strength of the people. 

I have heretofore indicated to our representatives abroad the approach of 
a change in the organization of society in the insurrectionary States. That 
change continues to reveal itself more distinctly every day. In the judg- 
ment of the President the time has come for setting forth the great fact 
distinctly for the serious consideration of the people in those States, and 
for giving them to understand that if they will persist in forcing upon the 
country a choice between the dissolution of this necessary and beneficent 
government or a relinquishment of the protection of slavery, it is the Union, 
and not slavery, that must be maintained and preserved. With this view 
the President has issued a proclamation in which he gives notice that slavery 
will be no longer recognized in any State which shall be found in armed 
rebellion on the first of January next. While good and wise men of all 
nations will confess that this is just and proper as a military proceeding for 
the relief of the country from a desolating and exhausting civil war, they 
will at the same time acknowledge the moderation and magnanimity witq 
which the government proceeds in a transaction of such great solemnity 
and importance. 

I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



196 



By the President of the United States of America. 

A PROCLAMATION. 

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and com- 
mander-in-chief of the army and navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare 
that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of 
practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States 
and each of the States and the people thereof, in which States that relation 
is or may be suspended or disturbed. 

That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting 1 of Congress, to again re- 
commend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to 
the free acceptance or rejection of all slave States, so called, the people 
whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States, and which 
States may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily 
adopt, immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective 
limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent with their 
consent upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained con- 
sent of the governments existing there, will be continued. 

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State 
or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion 
against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; 
and the executive government of the United States, including the military 
and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of 
such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of 
them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. 

That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by procla- 
mation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people 
thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; 
and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in 
good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members 
chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such 
State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing 
testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people 
thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States. 

That attention is hereby called to an act of Congress entitled "An act to 
make an additional article of war," approved March 13, 1862, and which act 
is in the words and figure following: 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the following shall 
be promulgated as an additional article of war for the government of the 
army of the United States, and shall be obeyed and observed as such: 

"Article — . All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the 
United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their 
respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or 
labor who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or 
labor is claimed to be due, and any officer who shall be found guilty bya 
court-martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service. 

"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect from and 
after its passage." 

Also to the ninth and tenth sections of an act entitled "An act to suppress 
insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate property 
of rebels, and for other purposes," approved July 17, 1862, and which sec- 
tions are in the words and figures following: 



197 

"Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall 
hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United 
States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from 
such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves 
captured from such persons or deserted by them, and coming under the con- 
trol of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such persons 
found on [or] being within any place occupied by rebel forces and after- 
wards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives 
of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as 
slaves. 

" Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any State, 
Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State, shall be deliv- 
ered up, or iu any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except for crime, 
or some offence against the laws, unless the person claiming said fugitive 
shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such 
fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and has not borne arms 
against the United States in the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid 
and comfort thereto; and no person engaged in the military or naval service of 
the United States shall, under any pretence whatever, assume to decide on 
the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other 
person, or surrender up any such person to the claimant, on pain of being 
dismissed from the service." 

And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the military 
and naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and enforce, within 
their respective spheres of service, the act and sections above recited. 

And the Executive will in clue time recommend that all citizens of the 
United States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the rebellion 
shall (upon the restoration of the constitutional relation between the United 
States and their respective States and people, if that relation shall have 
been suspended or disturbed) be compensated for all losses by acts of the 
United States, including the loss of slaves. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the 

seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Wash- 

[l. s] ington this twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord 

one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence 

of the United States the eighty-seventh. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

By the President: 

Wllliam H. Seward, Secretary of State. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Ada?ns. 



No. 356.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 23, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch No. 219, of the 5th instant, with the papers which 
accompanied it in relation to the case of the steamer Oreto, has been re- 
ceived and communicated to the Secretary of the Navy. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc , SfC. 



198 

[Circular— No. 24.] 

Department of State, 
Washington, September 25, 1862. 
To the diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in foreign countries: 

The following' additional regulations respecting passports are deemed 
necessary and advisable: 

When husband, wife, and minor children expect to travel together, a single 
passport for the whole will suffice. For any other person in the party a 
separate passport will be required. 

A new passport will be expected to be taken out by every person when- 
ever he or she may leave the United States, and every passport must be 
renewed, either at this department or at a legation or consulate abroad, 
within one year from its date. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 225.] Legation of the United States, 

London, September 25, 1862. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the depart- 
ment numbered from 335 to 338, both inclusive, of a circular of the 4th 
instant, enclosing a printed letter of the Postmaster General, and of two 
notes of the 9th instant relating to the release of Major Foley, and to a 
letter sent from here to Mr. Griffin at Williamsburg, in Virginia. 

The most important of these documents is No. 338 and its enclosure, 
which I perused with the closest attention. I was particularly glad to learn 
from it that the rumors set afloat in the continental newspapers of the 
probable retirement of Mr. Dayton were not well founded. The testimony 
borne to his official conduct by M. Thouvenel has given me the highest 
satisfaction, for it entirely accords with the impressions which I had myself 
formed of it. Indeed, it has been one great source of consolation to me in 
the midst of the trials to which the country has been subjected in Europe 
during the present struggle to be able to rely upon the capacity and the 
discretion of that gentleman in that responsible post. I trust that he will 
remain at least so long as the critical condition of our affairs may render 
the continuance of either of us of any importance in the eyes of the gov- 
ernment. 

It is not easy for me to determine how far M. Mercier must be regarded 
as having acted in his official capacity. The result of his somewhat similar 
prior experiment in visiting Richmond seems to have been only to produce 
the conviction that nothing useful could then be done. Perhaps the same 
effect may have followed your conversation. In any event no material 
change in the policy of France has yet made itself visible on this side of 
the water. Here things remain much as before the late news of our further 
reverses. If anything, the impression made of the power of the rebel arms 
rather breeds more indifference to the extending of any active sympathy. 
There are vague hopes that the war is approximating some termination or 
other. In the meantime the distress in the manufacturing districts is rather 



199 

on the increase, and the demand for cotton more imperative. Much discus- 
sion is had of the probable sources of future supply outside of America, 
without eliciting any very satisfactory answer. That a great expansion of 
the cultivation is going on is certain, but whether it will produce early 
supplies at all adequate to the demands is very much doubted. Over all 
the efforts making in other quarters hangs the dread of a sudden restoration 
of the American production. At this moment it cannot be disputed that the 
total destruction of all expectation from that source, at least for several 
years to come, would be a better safeguard for the future than the present 
state of suspense. The whole question, then, resolves itself into the main- 
tenance of the slave institutions of the southern States. And the position 
of Great Britain and France, so far as it has yet been defined, is in direct 
conflict with the principles which they profess; for a recognition of the 
present rebel government of those States, so far as it goes, would help to 
establish a supply of cotton furnished by the labor of an expanding slave 
population, which would inevitably annul all efforts to establish the culture 
elsewhere in the hands of freemen. Far better would it be for those coun- 
tries, as well as for the interests of the whole civilized world, if the present 
difficulty were met at once by a demand for unconditional emancipation. 

In the meantime the interest taken in American affairs has been somewhat 
diminished by the growing agitation of all the countries of Europe conse- 
quent upon the situation of Garibaldi. The pressure brought to bear upon 
the Emperor of France to induce him to withdraw his support of the Pope 
is met by a corresponding pressure of the Catholic interests of Europe on 
the opposite side. As yet there are no indications of a disposition on his 
part to modify in any way his late policy. The consequence is not favor- 
able to the prospect of consolidation in Italy. There are many symptoms of 
disintegration appearing which may prove too much for the strength of any 
ministry the King will be able to organize. This dubious condition of 
affairs, together with the large increase of expenditure occasioned by the 
Mexican expedition seriously adding to prior financial complications, maj' 
have the effect to deter the Emperor from all idea of action in America, 
especially if not seconded by any of the other powers of Europe. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 221.] Legation of the United States, 

London, September 26, 1862. 

Sir : I have not been quite satisfied with the way in which my remon- 
strances respecting the outfit of the gunboat No 290 had been left. In 
consequence I seized the first opportunity in my power to remind Lord 
Russell that no written answer had been given to me. This has had the 
desired effect. I have the honor to transmit copies of the two notes which 
have passed between us. In former days it was a favorite object of Great 
Britain to obtain from the United States an admission of the validity of 
claims for damage done by vessels fitted out in their ports against her 
commerce. This was finally conceded to her in the seventh article of the 
treaty of 1794. The reasoning which led to that agreement may not be 



200 

without its value at some future time, should the escape of the gunboat 290 
and of her companion, the Oreto, prove to be of any serious injury to our 
commerce. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation or the United States, 

London, September 4, 1862. 

My Lord: I have the honor to transmit the copy of a letter received from 
the consul of the United States at Liverpool, together with a deposition, in 
addition to the others already submitted with my notes of the 22d and 24th 
of July, going to show the further prosecution of the illegal and hostile 
measures against the United States in connexion with the outfit of the gun- 
boat No. 290 from the port of Liverpool. It now appears that supplies are 
in process of transmission from here to a vessel fitted out from England, 
and now sailing on the high seas, with the piratical intent to burn and 
destroy the property of the people of a country with which her Majesty is in 
alliance and friendship. I pray your lordship's pardon if I call your atten- 
tion to the fact that I have not yet received any reply in writing to the sev- 
eral notes and representations I have had the honor to submit to her Majes- 
ty's government touching this flagrant case. 

I beg to renew to your lordship the assurance of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be, mv lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 



Foreign Office, September 22, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th 
instant, enclosing a copy of a letter from the United States consul at Liver- 
pool, together with the deposition of Henry Redden, respecting the supply 
of cannon and munitions of war to the gunboat No. 290. You also call 
attention to the fact that you have not yet received any reply to the repre- 
sentations you have addressed to her Majesty's government upon the subject. 

I had the honor, in acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 22d of 
June, to state to you that the matter had been referred to the proper depart- 
ment of her Majesty's government for investigation. Your subsequent let- 
ters were also at once forwarded to that department, but, as you were 
informed in my letter of the 28th of July, it was requisite, before any active 
steps could be taken in the matter, to consult the law officers of the crown. 
This could not be done until sufficient evidence had been collected, and, from 
the nature of the case, some time was necessarily spent in procuring it. 
The reports of the law officers was not received until the 29th of July, and, 
on the same day, a telegraphic message was forwarded to her Majesty's gov- 
ernment, stating that the vessel had sailed that morning. Instructions were 
then despatched to Ireland to detain the vessel should she put into Queens- 
town, and similar instructions have been sent to the governor of the Baha- 
mas, in case of her visiting Nassau. It appears, however, that the vessel 



201 

did not go to Queenstown, as had been expected, and nothing' has been since 
heard of her movement. 

The officers of customs will now be directed to report upon the further 
evidence forwarded by you. I shall not fail to inform you of the result of 
the inquiry. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient humble servant, 

KUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, SfC. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 359.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 26, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of the 12th of September (No. 221) has been sub- 
mitted to the President. It gives evidence of deep research among the 
springs of political action in Europe, as it is also far-reaching in its grasp 
of the peculiar interests of this country. In this official paper I must write 
with less freedom than you have done on both subjects. 

In the beginning of our domestic troubles, all the outside world was appa- 
rently in a state of profound and permanent peace. It seemed as if, una- 
voidably, irritation was produced in several foreign countries by the derange- 
ment of our national commerce, and they were not only entirely free to com- 
bine against us and enforce a dissolution of the Union, but were even 
being impelled by very powerful influences to enter into such a combination. 
Perhaps the most portentous incident which has occurred in the progress 
of this unhappy strife was the announcement made to us by the govern- 
ments of Great Britain and France that they had agreed to act together in 
regard to the questions which it should present for their consideration. 
Every one knows the influence that the united wills of these two great mari- 
time powers carry in the councils of other states. It has been for us of late 
a relief to perceive that although European cabinets still maintain their con- 
ventional accord, yet the fundamental political interests of the states they 
represent are forcing themselves into notice and tempering, if not modifying, 
the proceedings of their governments. 

It is, as you suggest, very plainly the interest of all the members of this 
federal Union to arrest their civil war, reconcile their differences, reorganize 
the government on its constitutional basis, and thus maintain themselves 
equally against possible foreign war and the still more dangerous inroads 
of foreign influence. But the faction which has gotten up the insurrection 
builds its hopes of success chiefly upon foreign intervention, and it has not 
thu3 far been sufficiently exhausted to open the way for serious reflection in 
the revolutionary States. This whole nation, when united, was a greater and 
stronger power than it was believed abroad, and even greater and stronger 
than it supposed itself to be. The insurgent portion of it, though very un- 
equal to the loyal, are not deficient in strength and wealth available for 
treason. An ambitious spirit, perhaps it would not be severe to say a malig- 
nant one, has imparted much energy to the insurgent arms. But it no longer 
admits of doubt that there has been a visible process of exhaustion of men 
and money in the insurgent States. The waste of armies in war was un- 
forseen by them, as it was by the government. It is now visible on both 
sides. Practically, it is not difficult to renew our armies, but the wasted 
forces of the insurgents cannot be replaced. They have spent three hundred 



202 

and fifty millions already, and need two hundred and fifty millions more for 
expenditure before the beginning 1 of the new year. Their whole actual 
revenue from imposts and taxes gathered within the past year is nominally 
twelve millions, but this was received in a currency depreciated at least 
fifty per cent.; they have no resources for greater taxation. The spirit 
which has sustained them thus far cannot be maintained without the gain 
of military advantages far greater than they have hitherto obtained. 

In view of these facts, it is probably safe to assume that the insurrection 
has reached its crisis. 

As you are well aware, it has never been expected by the President that 
the insurgents should protract this war until it should exhaust not only 
themselves but the loyal States, and bring foreign armies or navies into the 
conflict, and still be allowed to retain in bondage, with the consent of this 
government, the slaves who constitute the laboring and producing masses 
of the insurrectionary States. At the same time, the emancipation of the 
slaves could be effected only by executive authority, and on the ground of 
military necessity. As a preliminary to the exercise of that great power, 
the President must have not only the exigency, but the general consent of 
the loyal people of the Union in the border slave States where the war was 
raging, as well as in the free States which have escaped the scourge, which 
could only be obtained through a clear conviction on their part that the 
military exigency had actually occurred. It is thus seen that what has been 
discussed so earnestly at home and abroad as a question of morals or of 
humanity has all the while been practically only a military question, depend- 
ing on time and circumstances. The order for emancipation, to take effect 
on the first of January, in the States then still remaining in rebellion against 
the Union, was issued upon due deliberation and conscientious consideration 
of the actual condition of the war, and the state of opinion in the whole 
country. 

No one who knows how slavery was engrafted upon the nation when it 
was springing up into existence; how it has grown and gained strength as 
the nation itself has advanced in wealth and power; how fearful the people 
have hitherto been of any change which night disturb the parasite, will 
contend that the order comes too late. It is hoped and believed that after 
the painful experience we have had of the danger to which the federal con- 
nexion with slavery is exposing the republic there will be few indeed who 
will insist that the decree which brings the connexion to an end either 
could or ought to have been further deferred. 

The interests of humanity have now become identified with the cause of 
our country, and this has resulted not from any infraction of constitutional 
restraints by the government, but from persistent unconstitutional and fac- 
tious proceedings of the insurgents, who have opposed themselves to both. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 360.] Department of State, 

Washington, September 30, 1862. 

Sir : Many free persons of African derivation residing within the United 
States have made known to the President their desires to emigrate to foreign 
countries if they could do so with the consent of the government and with 



203 

guarantees of its guardian cave over them while arranging their departure 
and pursuing their voyages, choosing their new homes and purchasing 
lands, or otherwise contracting for their permanent location and settlement 
abroad, and especially securing them, in every event, against being hereafter 
reduced to slavery or bondage. It is believed that the number of this class 
of persons so disposed to emigrate is augmenting and will continue to 
increase. 

On the other hand, some foreign governments situated within the tropics, 
and others having colonies or dependencies there, have intimated to the 
President a desire to receive such accessions to their population upon con- 
ditions favorable to the welfare, prosperity, and happiness of the emigrants. 

In view of these facts, the President has authorized me to enter into 
negotiations upon the subject with the government of Great Britain, if it 
shall be inclined to such a course. 

It is not within the purposes of this communication to present the project 
of a convention, but simply to state some of the general principles which 
this government supposes proper to be recognized in any treaties which 
may be contracted with reference to the objects which I have presented. 

First. That all emigration of persons of African derivation to take place 
tinder the stipulations of the treaty shall be perfectly free and voluntary on 
the part of adults, and with the full and expressed consent of parents and 
guardians for minor children and wards. 

Second. That agents of the government desiring to receive such emigrants 
shall be recognized by this government and authorized to solicit such emi- 
gration, but such agents shall be appointed by such government or with its 
sanction. Their names, with the dates of their appointments and the terms 
for which they are to continue, shall be made known to this government, 
which shall engage to protect them while peacefully and inoffensively pur- 
suing their occupation, but shall have always a right to require the dis- 
missal of any such agent whose conduct or deportment shall be found 
injurious to the peace, safety, or welfare of the United States. 

When any government which shall have entered into the treaty shall have 
obtained the consent of a colony or part} 7 of emigrants, a record of their 
names, ages, sexes, and conditions shall be made up with their proposed 
place of embarcation and destination, duly attested and verified. Such 
government shall then cause them, with their personal effects, to be 
received with all convenient despatch on board of sea-worthy vessels, which 
shall afford them healthful and convenient accommodations of space, air, 
food, water, and other necessaries for their intended voyage, and shall, in all 
cases, suffer no cruelty, inhumanity, or unnecessary severity to be practiced 
upon them. And families so emigrating shall not be separated without their 
consent. Any party of such emigrants who may desire it may be attended 
by an agent, being a citizen of the United States, to be selected by them and 
approved by the government, who may remain with them during the voyage 
and after their arrival at their destination, until they shall have been estab- 
lished in their new settlement; but such agent shall be paid by them or by 
the United States, and he shall be liable to be removed or recalled by this 
government and may be replaced upon representation from the other con- 
tracting party that his proceedings or conduct are disloyal or offensive to 
the government receiving such emigrants. 

On arriving at the place of debarkation such emigrants shall be furnished 
with plain but comfortable dwellings, one for each family, or with comfort- 
able homes in the families of resident inhabitants of the country, and either 
with lands to be occupied and owned by themselves adequate to their sup- 
port and maintenance, they practicing ordinary industry in cultivating the 
same, or else with employment on hire, with provision for their wants, and 



204 

compensation adequate to their support and maintenance, clothing and 
medicines and an education of the children in the simple elements of knowl- 
edge, which provision shall continue for the term of five years, minors and 
infants being permitted to reside with their parents and guardians during 
their minority, unless apprenticed with the consent of their parents and 
guardians. All such emigrants and their posterity shall forever remain 
free, and in no case be reduced to bondage, slavery, or involuntary servi- 
tude, except for crime; and they shall specially enjoy liberty of conscience 
and the right to acquire, hold, and transmit property, and all other priv- 
ileges of person common to inhabitants of the country in which they reside. 
It should be farther stipulated that in cases of indigence resulting from in- 
jury, sickness, or age, any of such emigrants who shall become paupers 
shall not thereupon be suffered to perish or to come to want, but shall be 
supported and cared for as is customary with similar inhabitants of the 
country in which they shall be residents. 

You are authorized to bring this subject to the attention of Earl Russell, 
and to inquire whether the British government has a desire to enter into 
such a negotiation. Should an affirmative answer be given, you may trans- 
mit to this department any suggestions that Earl Russell may desire to 
make in the premises, and you will, upon due consideration of the same, be 
furnished with a draft of a convention. 

It should be understood that it is not desired by the United States to give 
to any State a monopoly of the proposed emigration, but to open its benefits 
on equal terms to all States within the tropics, or having colonies there, 
which, maintaining free constitutional governments, shall desire those bene- 
fits. As it might be expedient to fix upon a definite period for the duration 
of the proposed treaty, you may suggest ten years as the term, with the 
privilege, after that time, of terminating it at the expiration of one year's 
notice to that effect. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc , fyc, <$•<?. 

Same, mutatis mutandis, addressed to ministers of the United States at 
Paris, the Hague, Copenhagen. 



Mr. Moran to Mr. Seivard. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, September 30, 1862. 

Sib: Under the direction of Mr. Adams, I have the honor to forward here- 
with the copy of a telegram received last evening from Mr. H. J. Sprague, 
the United States consul at Gibraltar, respecting the movements of the gun- 
boat 290, and of the United States vessels-of-war in the vicinity of the 
Mediterranean. 

I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, 

BENJAMIN MORAN, 
. Assistant Secretary of Legation. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



205 



[From Sprague, consul, 29th, 3.30 p. m.] 

Inform our government Kearsarge leaves to-morrow for the Azores in 
pursuit of Semmes, who has destroyed ten whalers. Have recommended 
Tuscarora, now at Cadiz, to follow her at once, and the Constellation to come 
down the Mediterranean. 

Mr. Adams, American Minister, London. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 229.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 3, 1862. 

Sir: Since the date of my last T have received despatches from the depart- 
ment numbered from 339 to 349, both inclusive. 

The telegraph intelligence so far outstrips the ordinary course of commu- 
nication that the accounts of the result of the invasion of Maryland and 
Pennsylvania followed close upon the mention in your No. 349 of General 
McClellan's first success. As yet we are not in possession of the details, 
but the effect upon the popular mind of what is known has been already 
very considerable. So stiong had the impression become that all power of 
further resistance by the government was for the moment destroyed, that 
many people confidently counted upon the possession of the national capital 
by the rebels as an event actually past. The surprise at this manifestation 
of promptness and vigor has been quite in proportion. The great stroke 
which was to finish the war, that had been early announced here as about 
to take place in September, seems to have failed, and to have left its pro- 
jectors in a worse condition than ever. The prevalent notion of the supe- 
riority of military energy and skill on the part of the insurgents in the field 
has been weakened. As a consequence, less and less appears to be thought 
of mediation or intervention. All efforts to stir up popular discontent meet 
with little response. The newspapers of the day contain a report of a de- 
cided check just given to a movement of this kind at Staley Bridge, near 
Manchester. On the whole, I am inclined to believe that perhaps a majority 
of the poorer classes rather sympathize with us in our struggle, and it is 
only the aristocracy and the commercial body that are adverse. Perhaps it 
may be quite as well for us if this should be the case. For the present 
ministry sufficiently reflects the popular side to be in little danger of pre- 
cipitation so long as no impulse from that quarter shall be manifested 
against us. 

Great interest continues to be felt in the Italian question. There are 
symptoms of movement of some kind on the part of the Emperor of France, 
but nobody pretends to foretell what it will be. The position of Garibaldi 
rouses stronger interest now that he is in prison than it did whilst he was 
quietly at home. The difficulty of bringing him to trial, in the face of the 
popular sympathies of half of Europe, is very serious. On the other hand, 
religious feelings are strongly appealed to in behalf of the Pope. A serious 
riot took place in Hyde Park on Sunday last, where a meeting in favor of 
Garibaldi was attempted. All this contributes to divide the attention here- 
tofc re so much concentrated on America. 

The distress in the manufacturing region rather increases in severity, 
but I am inclined to believe that the further closing of the mills is no longer 
made imperative by the diminution of the material. Large supplies of cot- 



206 

ton of the old crop were received from India last week, and three hundred 
thousand bales are announced as far on their way. The new crop will soon 
follow. What remains is to adjust the proper relation between the prices 
of the raw material and the manufactured product, which, owing to the 
great previous excess of the latter, is yet unsettled. In the meantime much 
attention is given to the invention of substitutes, and some resort had to 
other materials. More industry is enlisted in the making of commodities 
from wool as well as flax. There is also a quickening of the products of 
which silk is a component part. All these things will, I hope, combine to 
reduce from this time forward the amount of distress in the indigent classes. 
I judge that the cotton famine has passed its minimum, and that unless the 
governments of England and France should be so infatuated as to interrupt 
the natural progress of events, the great risk to the civilized world of future 
dependence upon an imperious and false organization of society in America 
will have been permanently averted. In the midst of all this, 1 wish I could 
see at home any prospect of a termination of this deplorable struggle. But 
the infatuation of the dominant class in the south seems to have reached its 
highest pitch when it dreams of dictating its own terms in our capital cities. 
There is no dealing with such persons excepting with their own weapons. 
Here is the conflict of two ideas which cannot be harmonized by reasoning. 
Much as it may cost, the struggle must go on, and modern civilization tri- 
umph, or America will forfeit all further claim to be designated as the land 
of the free. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 230.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 3, 1862. 

Sir : I regret to be obliged to state that accounts are coming in of the 
ravages committed by the gunboat 290, now called the Alabama, which has 
been cruising off the Azores. So long ago as the 5th of last month I felt it 
my duty to apprise the consul at Gibraltar of the position of that vessel, 
and to warn him, and through him the vessels on that station, to be on the 
alert. I now learn from him, as well as from Mr. Harvey, at Lisbon, that 
they have just sailed. The probability is that the Alabama will next turn 
up somewhere in the West Indies, or on the coast of South America. 

There are rumors from Liverpool of the preparation of several steamers 
to sail as privateers. They find some corroboration from the report just 
received of the proceedings at Richmond in regard to letters of marque. 
There is no doubt that the presence of one or two fast United States 
steamers, commanded by efficient officers, would be of use in the European 
waters. 

I transmit the copy of another note which I have addressed to Lord Rus- 
sell upon my receiving from Mr. Dudley a fresh and strong deposition to 
add to those already accumulated in the case of the gunboat 290. It will 



207 

be a little difficult for this government to justify its want of energy in 
enforcing the provisions of the law in regatd to that vessel. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 

[Enclosure ] 
Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, with deposition, September 30, 1862. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, September 30, 1862. 

My Lord : I have the honor to submit to your consideration the copy of 
another deposition taken at Liverpool before the collector of the port, 
which, in connexion with the papers heretofore presented, goes to establish 
beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the insurgents in the United States 
and their coadjutors at that place have been engaged in fitting out vessels 
at that port to make war on the United States, in utter contempt of the law 
and of her Majesty's injunctions in her proclamation. I expect to be in 
possession of some stronger evidence of the same nature in relation to past 
transactions, which I hope to be able, likewise, to submit in a few days. 

The injuries to which the people of the United States are subjected by 
the unfortunate delays experienced in the case of my remonstrance against 
the fitting out of the gunboat 290, now called the confederate steamer 
Alabama, are just beginning to be reported. I last night received intelli- 
gence from Gibraltar that this vessel has destroyed ten whaling ships in 
the course of a short time at the Azores. 

I have strong reason to believe that still other enterprises of the same 
kind are in progress in the ports Jpf Great Britain at this time. Indeed, they 
have attained so much notoriety as to be openly announced in the news- 
papers of Liverpool and London. In view of the very strong legal opinion 
which I had the honor to present to your lordship's consideration, it is im- 
possible that all these things should not excite great attention in the United 
States. I very much fear they will impress the people and the government 
with a belief, however unfounded, that their just claims on the neutrality of 
Great Britain have not been sufficiently estimated. The extent to which 
her Majesty's flag and some of her ports have been used to the end of 
carrying on hostile operations is so universally understood that I deem it 
unnecessary further to dwell upon it. But in the spirit of friendliness with 
which I have ever been animated towards her Majesty's government, I feel 
it my duty to omit no opportunity of urging the manifestation of its well 
known energy in upholding those laws of neutrality upon which alone the 
reciprocal confidence of nations can find a permanent basis. 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c, &c, &c. 



208 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 362.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 4, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of the 18th of September has been received, and your 
proceedings in relation to the delivery of the autograph letter of the Presi- 
dent to her Majesty therein mentioned are approved. 

No marked event has occurred since the date of my last communications. 
The insurrectionary advances seem to have been arrested; our naval prepa- 
rations are steadily proceeding. Our armies, which are being rapidly re-en- 
forced, are preparing for new and energetic movements. The perturbation 
of the public mind abates, and cheerful views of the future are beginning 
to prevail. There are indications of returning loyalty in Louisiana and in 
North Carolina. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, SfC, SfC. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 36?.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 10, 1862. 
Sir : Your despatch of September 26 (No. 227) has been received, and 
your proceedings in relation to the armament of the gunboat 290 in British 
waters, as there recited, are approved. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 368.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 10, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of the 25th of September (No. 226) has been received." 

The President is gratified by the tribute you have paid to the prudence 
and fidelity of Mr. Dayton. 

Mr. Dayton has given me an account of an informal and unofficial conver- 
sation with which he was lately favored by Mr. Thouvenel, which indicates 
a harmony between him and Mr. Mercier in despondencj' concerning the 
success of the Union arms, but not any sentiments of hostility or of unfriend- 
liness to this government. 

I learn, also, from Mr. Sanford that .Baron Talleyrand, on his recent re- 
turn from Paris to Brussels, informed Mr. Sanford that Mr. Thouvenel had 
said to him that business was suspended at Paris until the return of the 
Emperor from Biarritz, after which they should take up the Italian and the 
American questions. 

This government has nothing to say concerning the first of these subjects. 

In regard to the latter, it is certain that the aspect of the case for the 
enemies of the Union, when the time for that consideration shall have come, 



209 

will be found to have changed much for the worse from what it was when 
Mr. Thouvenel was conversing- with Baron Talleyrand. Recent events in- 
dicate a loss by the insurgents of even more than the prestige they won by 
their desperate attempt to invade and subjugate the loyal States of the 
republic. The Emperor of France is extensively regarded in European circles 
as an arbitrator among nations ; but we are not aware that he has ever af- 
fected so important and hazardous a trust. We do him no such injustice as 
to suppose him hostile to the United States or disposed to do them a wrong. 

However the case may prove in this respect, we do no such injury to our 
cause and no such violence to our national self-respect as to apprehend that 
the Union is to be endangered by any foreign war that shall come upon us 
unprovoked and without excuse. However public opinion, either here or in 
foreign countries, may veer with the varying chances of war. it must be 
understood by all the representatives of the United States abroad that the 
President indulges no apprehensions of a failure of the people in their de- 
termined purpose of maintaining the federal Union. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., 8fC, fyc., §c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 231.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 10, 1862. 

Sir: The last week has been marked by only two events of any particular 
importance. 

The first of these was the reception of the news of the President's procla- 
mation respecting the slaves. The effect of it has been only to draw the 
line with greater distinctness between those persons really friendly to the 
United States and the remainder of the community, and to test the extent 
of the genuine anti-slavery feeling left in this country. 

The second is the appearance of Mr. Gladstone, the chancellor of the ex- 
chequer, once more in a popular address referring to the state of things in 
America. From the first there has been little doubt on which side his sym- 
pathy was. But the present is the first occasion upon which he has ventured 
to touch upon the slave portion of the controversy. His idea that the force 
of the slave tenure will be diminished by the withdrawal of that portion of 
the governing power which had heretofore been applied to sustain it in the 
free States is as ingenuous as it is sophistical. 

As this is just the season when public men are in the practice of making 
their addresses all over the country, it is probable that more or less of them 
will be appearing from day to clay in the newspapers. I find reports of two 
in those of this morning. There is no mistaking the spirit they contain; 
and as both the members are of the so-called liberal or ministerial party, 
generally ranked as the least unfavorable of the two to the United States, 
it is not unfair to infer from them the tendency of opinion everywhere in the 
governing classes. I think that in this connexion the tone of Mr. Glad- 
stone may be construed as indicating the course that may be taken by gov- 
ernment as soon as Parliament meets, should the indications of public opinion 
be so marked as to make any step necessary. The only thing now likely 
further to retard it, in my opinion, is any serious change in the character of 
war. We are yet awaiting the issue of the grand plan of operations con- 
14 



210 

cocted at .Richmond, only a portion of which has thus far been defeated. 
Of this plan, the naval portion, a consciousness of the existence of which is 
so singularly betrayed by Mr. Gladstone, is far the most important to us, in 
connexion with the position of Great Britain; for the fact is certain that 
the whole of it has been constructed and organized here. Any diminution 
of our power on the ocean would be hailed here with the greatest delight, 
for it is there that the greatest jealousy exists. I trust that government has 
been sufficiently warned of what is preparing in this direction to be able to 
meet the emergency with adequate forces. The great difficulty in the way 
of the rebels is the want of seamen. There seems thus far to be, at least 
on this side, no deficiency of money. 

On the whole, the prospect is not quite so bright as I had hoped a few 
days ago, when the rebel army seemed in the greatest danger. But we have 
so much of unexhausted resources left, in comparison with the insurgents, 
that it would seem as if, with ordinary skill in the direction, the ultimate 
issue could not be doubtful. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. "William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 238.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 10, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit copies of further notes that have passed 
between Lord Russell and myself in regard to the outfits in behalf of the 
insurgents made from the ports of this kingdom. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

[Enclosures.] 

1. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, October 4, 1862. 

2. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, October 9, 1862. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 



Foreign Office, October 4, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th 
ultimo, enclosing a copy of another deposition, taken before the collector of 
the port of Liverpool, with reference to the proceedings of the gunboat 290, 
and further expressing a belief that enterprises of a similar kind are in 
course of progress in the ports of the United Kingdom; and I have to state 
to you that, much as her Majesty's government desire to prevent such oc- 
currences, they are unable to go beyond the law, municipal and international. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., §c, $c, §c. 



211 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 

• Legation of the United States, 

London, October 9, 1862. 

My Lord: I now have the honor to transmit to your lordship a copy of an 
intercepted letter which I have received from my government, being- the 
further evidence to which I made allusion in my note to your lordship of the 
30th of September, as substantiating- the allegations made of the infringe- 
ments of the enlistment law by the insurgents of the United States in the 
ports of Great Britain. I am well aware of the fact to which your lordship 
calls my attention in the note of the 4th instant, the reception of which I 
have the honor to acknowledge, that her Majesty's government are unable 
to go beyond the law, municipal and international, in preventing enterprises 
of the kind referred to. But in the representations which I have had the 
honor lately to make, I beg to remind your lordship that I base them upon 
evidence which applies directly to infringements of municipal law itself, and 
not to anything beyond it. The consequence of an omission to enforce its 
penalties is, therefore, 'necessarily that heretofore pointed- out by eminent 
counsel, to wit: that "the law is little better than a dead letter," or result 
against which " the government of the United States has serious ground of 
remonstrance." 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration 
with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, §c, §c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 369.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 13, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of the 25th of September (No. 225) has been received 
and submitted to the President. While its statements are very interesting, 
and its suggestions seem to be wise and judicious, a special reply on my part 
has been rendered unnecessary by my anticipation of the subject discussed in 
your despatches. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

■WILLIAM H, SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, 8$. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 372.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 18, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of October 3 (No. 229) has been submitted to the 
President. - 

He is gratified by the information it brings, that a reaction in Europe in 
regard to our affairs, which was anticipated- here, has actually occurred. 



212 

It was the policy of the insurgents to surprise the government by their 
invasion of the loyal States, and at the same time to raise the most sanguine 
expectations in foreign countries of its success. The manoeuvre was scarcely 
developed here before it was ostentatiously "avowed that that success was 
expected to bring to pass the recognition of their sovereignty by European 
states. The President was therefore prepared for the information which 
your despatches and other correspondence give of the deep impressions 
which have, during the last month, been made in Europe in favor of the 
insurgents. 

It is not, however, now doubted here that the battles of South Mountain and 
Antietam, followed by the retreat of the insurgents from Maryland, and by 
the President's proclamation of warning to the insurgent States, have well 
sustained the reaction abroad which has been already mentioned. 

At the same time you will need to know the present military and political 
conditions of the country and the expectations of the President based upon 
them. I do not think that I can better describe these conditions than by 
saying, on the whole, that there has been only this change since the month 
of June last, namely, that whereas at that time it was believed here that 
the government had virtually suppressed the revolt, the reverses and suc- 
cesses of our arms within the period that has intervened have now brought 
about the conviction that the revolt, practically speaking, has failed. The 
battle of Corinth was a great conflict, and it has produced large results. It 
leaves us but little trouble to relieve the Mississippi river of insurgent 
forces, and we are rapidly preparing the land and naval expeditions neces- 
sary for that purpose. 

The invasion of Kentucky seems to have virtually come to an end with 
the defeat of the insurgents at Corinth and at Perry ville. They are leaving 
the State with as much haste as they rushed through it towards Louisville 
and Cincinnati. Their demonstrations against Missouri have been equally 
unsuccessful. General McClellan is being rapidly re-enforced, and recon- 
noissances which he has made truly indicate a new trial of strength between 
his army and that of Lee near Winchester. Only the impossibility of finding 
room for more workers upon our iron-clad navy delays the despatch of 
vessels of that class believed to be sufficient without the present navy to 
recover all the ports of the country which are yet remaining in the posses- 
sion of the insurgents. Charleston and Mobile will be early visited with 
that view, and thus we may reasonably expect to relieve ourselves of the 
inconveniences which result to the national cause from the success of 
British built and equipped vessels in carrying arms and supplies to the 
insurgents, since we are compelled to despair of any other correction of that 
great wrong. 

You are well aware how long political controversy has been wearing a 
gulf to divide opinion in our country on the subject of interference with 
slavery in the slaveholding States. You know how deep that gulf has 
become, and how confessedly impassable it is except under the pressure of 
absolute, immediate, and irretrievable danger to the Union itself. Notwith- 
standing many respected counsellors at home, and all our representatives 
abroad, have long and earnestly urged an earlier adoption of such a measure 
as the President has at last accepted, it was nevertheless wisely delayed 
until the necessity for it should become so manifest as to make it certain 
that, instead of dividing the loyal people of the Union into two parties, one 
fur and the other against the prosecution of the war for the maintenance of 
the Union, it would be universally accepted and sustained. It is now appa- 
rent that the measurc.will be thus sustained. 

The popular discussion which preceded the resolution, concurring with 
the spasmodic action of that portion of public opinion which, under the 



213 

influences of excitement, reasons to final results from ephemeral events, 
lias somewhat disturbed the public mind during the last three months, and 
elicited in many quarters hasty and inconsiderate expressions which, doubt- 
lessly, will be interpreted by our adversaries abroad as indicating a want 
of devotion to the war and of popular determination to give it success. 
Nothing, however, could be more erroneous than any such impressions, 
in whatsoever way produced. Virtually, the six hundred thousand men 
whom the government called for have come into the field as volunteers 
within the short space of ten weeks. T mention, by way of illustration, 
the fact that New York alone has sent into the field within that period 
eighty thousand men, and she is now sending in the balance of her quota, 
thirty-seven thousand. All the other States have done and are doing 
equally well. From one end of the loyal ^region to the other, including 
even the border States, and notwithstanding supposed disfavor resulting 
from the President's proclamation, there does not come up to the ear of 
the government a suggestion or a whisper of discontent with the deter- 
mination it manifests to maintain and preserve the Union, at whatever cost, 
with whatever measures, and in whatever event. 

On the other hand, there are manifest symptoms of not only exhaustion 
but of reaction in the insurrectionary region. The language of defiance 
there is hushed, while a desire for peace is very freely and generally ex- 
pressed. It is manifest, from the tone of insurgent organs, that the 
proclamation of the President is filling the insurrectionary region with 
serious apprehensions, and this circumstance sufficiently indicates a failure 
of expectation of repelling the national arms from the home and haunts of 
African slavery. If we correctly understand the affairs of the insurgents, 
their last available forces are already in the field, and are very inferior to the 
Union armies in numbers and efficiency, while their leaders have not yet done, 
and are not able to do, anything to establish a system of revenue that could 
enable them to maintain the struggle in which they have already lavished 
so much of their wealth and strength. It would seem to result from this 
view that the crisis of the insurrection has come, and that its last hopes are 
staked upon foreign intervention. 

Upon that point nothing has been left unsaid by this government. If 
there have been intimations from abroad of the possibility of such a course, 
they have been met with the reply that this nation will not consent to be 
divided, nor to recognize relations of friendship with any power that shall 
lend its aid to such a dangerous purpose. To this determination the Presi- 
dent adheres. He feels confident that he is right in believing that even 
foreign intervention could not now endanger the Union that he is sworn to 
maintain and preserve. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., dec, dec, dec. 



Air. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 3*13.} Department of State, 

Washington, October 20, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of October 3 (No. 230) has been received. Your 

proceeding in presenting to her Majesty's government a remonstrance against 

the practices of British subjects, in arming and fitting out privateers to 

depredate on American commerce is approved by the President. The lau- 



214 

guage and the effect of your remonstrance are equally satisfactory. When 
at the close of the last session of Congress it was proposed here to issue 
letters of marque for the protection of our commerce against such depreda- 
tions by the insurgents, the proposition was relinquished on the ground that 
they had no ports here within control from which piratical cruisers could 
he sent out, and it was not apprehended that the shores of Great Britain 
would be suffered to be used by them for a base of operations. Yet we now 
see a piratical vessel built, manned, armed, equipped, and despatched from 
a British port, and roaming at large on the seas, without ever touching the 
American shores, destroying American merchantmen as if there were no 
treaties between Great Britain and the United States, while entrance into 
British ports for coals and other supplies is denied to our national armed 
vessels under a proclamation of neutrality. This is one of the lamentable 
fruits of the policy which Great Britain adopted at the beginning of the 
war, without previous consultation with the United States, and has persisted 
in ever since in opposition to their earnest and persevering remonstrances. 
Our agents are reporting to us new and larger military and naval prepara- 
tions in British ports, and if they are to be allowed to go on to their conclu- 
sion, and to operate, as has been done in the case of the 290, will not the 
result be that, while Great Britain avows neutrality, her subjects are prac- 
tically allies of the internal enemies of the United States? The President 
will not consent to believe that her Britannic Majesty's government would 
willingly allow a condition of affairs to occur which would seem to leave to 
the United States almost no hope of remaining at peace with Great Britain 
without sacrifices for which no peace could ever compensate. 

The Secretary of the Navy is adopting all possible means to meet the 
new exigency which has occurred. 

I am, sir, yuur obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWAKD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., die, dec, dec 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 374.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 20, 1862. 

Sir: With reference to the operations of the insurgent steamer 290, an 
extract from a letter of Mr. Dabney, United States consul at Teneriffe, to 
Mr. Perry, chai-ge d'affaires at Madrid, is herewith appended. 
I am your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
C. F. Adams, Esq., dec, dec, dec. 



Consulate of the United States of America, 
Teneriffe, Canary Islands, September 24, 1862. 

The vessel referred to is probably the 290, a powerful vessel, which you 
are, of course, cognizant of, and an equally powerful steamer is necessary 
to overhaul her, which, perhaps, 3'ou may have the power to despatch after 
her. I would inform you that, about the 22d ultimo, two steamers and a 
ship, all showing the English flag, anchored at an out-of-the-way place, at 



215 

the island of Terceira, Azores, and were two days engaged in passing cargo 
from the ship to the steamers, of which this is probably one, and there may 
have been two fitted out at that time. 

I remain, sir, your most obedient, 

WILLIAM H. DABNEY. 
Horatio J. Perry, Esq., 

United States Legation, Madrid. s 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 316 ] Department of State, 

Washington, October 21, 1862. 

Sir: I transmit herewith, for your information, a copy of an instruction of 
3'esterday (No. 237) addressed to Mr. Dayton, in relation to alleged purposes 
of Great Britain and France to recognize the independence of the States in 
insurrection against this government. You may make any use of this 
despatch which you may deem advisable. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 

[The instruction above referred to is placed according to date in the cor- 
respondence with France.] 



Mr. Seioard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 378.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 25, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of October 10 (No. 238) has been received. Your reply 
to Earl Russell's note of the 4th instant on the subject of British outfits of 
British-built vessels from British ports, with British-shipped crews, to depre- 
date on American commerce on the high seas, is approved by the President. 
I do not know how I could add a word to fortify or improve the clear, calm, 
and energetic protest which that paper contains. 
I am sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 379.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 25, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of October 10 (No. 237) has been received. It shows 
that the President's proclamation has produced in Great Britain an impres- 
sion similar in nature, and differing only in degree, from the effect which it 
has had here. Although, for obvious reasons, little was said on the subject in 
the correspondence of this department in anticipation of the proclamation, 



216 

yet you must have well understood that the President did not adopt the 
sanguine expectations of those who assumed that it would instantaneously 
convert the foreign enemies of our country into friends. It is not now pro- 
posed to discuss with those persons the questions they so ingeniously raise, 
namely, whether the proclamation has not come too late, whether it has not 
come too early, or whether its effect will not be defeated I)} 7 the fact that it 
is based upon military necessity, and not upon philanthropy. In regard to 
the first two points, they are raised by those for whom distasteful events are 
always unseasonable. In regard to the latter, it may be said that the Chris- 
tian religion has proved none the less successful and beneficent to Europe, 
although it must be confessed that the mere charity inculcated by that 
religion was not the exclusive motive of Constantine in adopting and pro- 
claiming it. 

Time advances, and the national power will not lag behind it in bearing 
the proclamation into the homes which slavery has scourged with the crown- 
ing evils of civil war, and the most flagrant of political crimes — treason 
against the best constitution and the best government that has ever been 
established among men. There is reason to hope that the proceeding will 
divide and break the insurrection. The public mind has been disturbed, 
and the periodical occurrence, of popular elections has been attended by ex- 
travagant expressions, as usual. But the policy of the administration will 
be practically acquiesced in and ultimately universally approved. 

Your warning against hostile designs of a naval character have been sub- 
mitted to the Secretary of the Navy. The delays of our new iron-clad ves- 
sels are painful and mortifying, but one cannot see where to charge fault; 
and we have some reason to hope that our energies, however unsatisfactory 
to ourselves, cannot be surpassed in effect by the enemies and their co- 
laborers in Great Britain. We have now promises, which seem reliable, of 
all the vessels we need, within the period that is spent in a voyage across 
the ocean and back again. 

Kentucky and Missouri, like Maryland, are free again. The war retires 
into Tennessee, as it has into Virginia. Expeditions up and down the Mis- 
sissippi are nearly in readiness. General McClellan is preparing operations 
in Virginia, not so rapidly as our impatience demands, but, doubtless, with 
his customary care and comprehensiveness. General Mitchell will not long 
be idle before Charleston. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 381.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 25, 1862. 

Sir: I send herewith copies of papers which have just been received from 
James E. Harvey, esquire, our minister at Lisbon, touching the depredations 
of piratical vessels built, armed, manned, and equipped in British ports, and 
despatched from such ports upon the American merchant vessels on the 
high seas near the island of Flores. 

The President desires that you lay copies, or the substance of them, before 
Earl Russell in such manner as shall seem best calculated to effect two im- 
portant objects: first, due redress for the national and private injuries sus- 



217 

tained; and secondly, a prevention of such lawless and injurious proceeding's 
hereafter. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., SfC, fyc, fyc. 

[The papers above referred to are printed in this series in the correspond- 
ence with Portugal.] 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 382.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 21, 1862. 

Sir: The military events which seem to require a notice, when the mail is 
departing-, are, first, the escape of the insurgents from Kentucky back into 
the mountains of Tennessee. General BuelPs proceedings are, in some mili- 
tary quarters, thought to have been unnecessary dilatory; he has been 
relieved, and General Rosecrans, a very vigorous and accomplished officer, 
assumes the vacated command. Second, General Scholefield has defeated 
the insurgents in Arkansas, in which State they were attempting to make a 
stand after their second expulsion from Missouri. Third, General McClellan 
is on the eve of crossing the Potomac to challenge the insurgents as a 
beginning of the new campaign in Virginia. Fourth, re-enforcements are 
going- to our forces in North Carolina, South Carolina, and New Orleans. 
These re-enforcements will have all needful naval co-operation. There are 
various political manifestations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Louisiana, 
which are not destitute of significancy, but it would be premature perhaps 
to specify them. It must suffice to say that it is a mistake to assume, as 
seems to be so freely assumed in Europe, that the President's proclamation 
of warning to the insurgent States will be either unfruitful or even unheeded. 
After there shall have been time to collect and ascertain the true effect of 
the extraordinary speeches and publications concerning our national affairs, 
which the last mail has brought us from Europe, I shall give you the im- 
pressions they shall have made on the mind of the President. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 383.] Department op State, 

Washington, October 27, 1862. 

Sir: You will receive herewith the resolutions of the Chambers of Com- 
merce of the State of New York, on the subject of the recent destruction 
at sea of American vessels near the Azores by pirates, who went forth upon 
that unlawful errand from British ports and waters. 

You will judge how far, the submission of these resolutions, which are so 
just in themselves, and so humane, to the notice of Earl Russell may con- 
duce to the desired ends of redress for the past and prevention for the future 
which are indicated in another instruction sent to you under this date. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



218 

[Circular— No. 27.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, October 27, 1862. 

To the dijilomatic and consular representatives of the United States: 

Under the leave of the President, I transmit herewith loyal, patriotic, 
and humane resolutions which have been adopted by the Chamber of Com- 
merce of the State of New York in relation to the late destruction of 
American vessels in the vicinity of the Azores by vessels built, equipped, 
armed, manned, and despatched for that enterprise in the ports of a friendly 
nation. 

Eepresentations upon the same subject have been made by this depart- 
ment to the government of Great Britain. It will, therefore, not be expected 
that you shall publish these resolutions or adopt any official proceedings 
thereon, but will regard them as sent to you simply for your own information 
with reference to the condition of public sentiment in our country. 

Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York. 

At a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, 
held to consider what action, if any, should be taken in consequence of the 
burning at sea by the steamer Alabama of the ship Brilliant and other ves- 
sels, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted, to wit : 

Resolved, That this chamber has heard with profound emotion the graphic 
account given by Captain Hager of the burning of his ship Brilliant on 
the 3d day of October instant, a portion of which is in the following 
words : 

"At sunset the Brilliant was fired — at 1. p. m. was in flames fore and 
aft, the E. F. lying about a mile from her. The ship continued to burn all 
night. In the morning the steamer was .close at hand, and the ship seen the 
afternoon before had worked up to the burning wreck during the night, 
probably with the expectation of saving life, but at daylight found herself 
in the clutches of her destroyer ! It continued calm during all clay, and but 
a light air during the night. Towards midnight a bright light was seen in 
the direction of the steamer, and it is more than probable it was from the 
third ship." 

Resolved, That, in view of this atrocity, it is the duty of this chamber to 
announce, for the information of all who are interested in the safety of hu- 
man life — the life of shipwrecked passengers and crews — that henceforth 
the light of a burning ship at sea will become to the American sailor the 
signal that lures to destruction, and will not be, as in times past, the beacon to 
guide the generous and intrepid mariner to the rescue of the unfortunate. 

Resolved, That henceforth self-preservation will be the first dictate of 
prudence, as it is the "first law of nature," and, consequently, that the 
destruction of the Brilliant can be only characterized as a crime against 
humanity ; and all who have knowingly and willingly aided and abetted 
must be considered as participators in the crime. 

Resolved, That this chamber has not failed to notice a rapid change in 
British sentiment, transforming a friendly nation into a self-styled "neutral" 
power — the nature of which neutrality is shown in permitting ships to go 
forth with men, and in permitting an armament to follow them, for the de- 
testable work of plundering and destroying American ships ; thus encourag- 
ing, upon the high seas, an offence against neutral rights, on the plea of 
which, in the case of the Trent the British government threatened to 
plunge this country into war. 



219 

Resolved, further, That the outrage consigning to destruction by fire, 
"without adjudication, British and American property together, is an aggra- 
vation of the offence against the rights of neutrals, and ought to be de- 
nounced as a crime by the civilized nations of the world. 

Resolved, That this chamber has heard with amazement that other vessels 
are fitting out in the ports of Great Britain to continue the work of de- 
struction begun by the Alabama — an enormity that cannot be committed 
on the high seas without jeopardizing the commerce and peace of nations. 

Resolved, further, That it is the duty of this chamber to warn the mer- 
chants of Great Britain that a repetition of such acts as the burning of the 
Brilliant by vessels fitted out in Great Britain, and manned by British 
seamen, cannot fail to produce the most wide-spread exasperation in this 
country ; and hence they invoke the influence of all men who value peace 
and good will among the nations to prevent the departure of other vessels 
of the character referred to from their ports, and so to avert the calamity 
of war. 

Resolved, That it is the desire of this chamber, as it is the interest of all 
its members, to cherish sentiments of amity with the people of Great Britain, 
to maintain those cordial relations which have led to profitable intercourse, 
and to strengthen the ties that knit them together in mutual courtesy and 
respect. 

Resolved, That copies of the foregoing preamble and resolutions be sent 
to the Hon. Secretary of State of the United States and to the Board of 
Trade of London and Liverpool, and that the Secretary of State be requested 
to transmit copies of the same to the diplomatic agents of the United States 
for distribution in other commercial countries. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the resolutions from 
the minutes of the chamber. 

JOHN AUSTIN STEVENS, Jr., 

Secretary. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Scicard. 



No. 242.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 16, 1862. 

Sm : I now transmit copies of further notes on the subject of the gunboat 
290, in continuation of those sent with my despatch (No. 227) of the 26th of 
September. It is very manifest that no disposition exists here to apply the 
powers of the government to the investigation of the acts complained of, flagrant 
as they are, or to the prosecution of the offenders. The main object must now 
be to make a record which may be of use at some future day. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHABLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

Enclosures. 

1. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams," October 9, 1862. 

2. Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Hammond, September 27, 1862. 

3 Commissioners of Customs on No. 290, September 25, 1862. 



220 



Foreign Office, October 9, 1862. 
Sir : With reference to my letter to yon of the 22d ultimo, I have the honor 
to enclose a copy of a letter which I have received from the board of treasury, 
forwarding the copy of a report from her Majesty's commissioners of customs 
relative to the supply of cannon and munitions of war to the gunboat No. 290. 
1 have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, 
humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Treasury Chambers, September 29, 1862. 

Sir : "With reference to your letter of the 12th instant, and previous corres- 
pondence, I am directed by the lords, &c, to transmit herewith, for the informa- 
tion of Earl Russell, copy of a report, No. 478, dated 25th instant, of the 
commissioners of customs relative to the supply of cannon, &c, to the gunboat 
No. 290. 

I am, &c, 

GEO. A. HAMILTON. 



No. 478.] Custom-House, September 25, 1862. 

Your lordships having, by Mr. Arbuthnot's letter of the 16th instant, trans- 
mitted to us, with reference to Mr. Hamilton's letter of the 2d ultimo, the enclosed 
communication from the foreign office, with copies of a further letter and its en- 
closures from the United States minister at this court respecting the supply of 
cannon and munitions of war to the gunboat No. 290, recently built at Liver- 
pool, and now in the service of the so-called Confederate States of America; 
and your lordships having desired that we would take such steps as might seem 
to be required in view of the facts therein represented, and report the result 
to your lordships, we have now to report : 

That, assuming the statements set forth in the affidavit of Redden (who sailed 
from Liverpool in the vessel) which accompanied Mr. Adams's letter to Earl 
Russell to be correct, the furnishing of arms, &c, to the gunboat does not appear 
to have taken place in any part of the United Kingdom or of her Majesty's do- 
minions, but in or near Augra Bay, part of the Azores, part of the Portuguese 
dominions. No offence, therefore, cognizable by the laws of this country appears 
to have been committed by the parties engaged in the transaction alluded to in 
the affidavit. 

With respect to the allegation of Redden that the arms, &c, were shipped on 
board the 290 in Augra Bay partly from a bark (name not given) which arrived 
there from London, commanded by a Captain Quinn, and partly from the 
steamer Bahama, from Liverpool, we beg to state that no vessel having a master 
named Quinn can be traced as having sailed from this port for foreign parts 
during the last six months; the Knight Errant, Captain Quine, a vessel of 
1,342 tons burden, cleared for Calcutta on the 12th of April last with a general 
cargo, such as is usually exported to the East Indies ; but so far as can be 
ascertained from the entries, she had neither gunpowder, nor cannon on board. 

The steamer Bahama cleared from Liverpool on the 12th ultimo for Nassau. 
We find that Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., engineers and iron founders of Liver- 
pool, shipped on board that vessel nineteen cases containing guns, gun carriages, 



221 

shot, rammers, &c, weighing in all 158 cwt. 1 qr. 27 lbs.; there was no other 
cargo on board except 552 tons of coals, for the use of the ship ; and the above- 
mentioned goods having been regularly cleared for Nassau in compliance with 
the customs law, our officers could have no power to interfere with their ship- 
ment. 

With reference to the further statement in the letter to Mr. Dudley, the con- 
sul of the United States at Liverpool, that the bark that took out the guns and 
coals is to carry out another cargo of coals to the gunboat 290, either from Cardiff 
or Troon, near Greenock, we have only to remark that there would be great 
difficulty in ascertaining the intention of any parties making such a shipment; 
and we do not apprehend that our officers would have any power of interfering 
with it, were the coals cleared outwards for some foreign port in compliance 
with the law. 

F. GOULHUKA. 
W. R. CREY. 

To the Lords, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Setvard. 



No. 243.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 17, 1862. 

Sir : About the time of writing my despatch No. 237, I was considering in 
my mind the expediency of asking a conference with Lord Russell in order to 
know whether the speech of Mr. Gladstone was to be regarded by me as con- 
veying to the public the views of her Majesty's government. But as I was just 
then on the point of executing a promise I had made to visit Mr. W. E. Forster 
at his place in Yorkshire, I determined to put off a decision at least until after 
my return to London. In the meantime I have had the opportunity of free 
conversation with that gentleman, whose capacity, judgment, and tact in the 
treatment of American questions in Parliament have heretofore won for him 
much of my respect and regard. The conclusions to which I might have come 
were, however, greatly modified by the events which happened during the interval 
of my stay. It became tolerably apparent to me that Mr. Gladstone had been 
expressing his individual opinions and giving loose to his personal sympathy 
with the chief of the rebels, whilst his course was regarded by several of his 
colleagues as transcending the line of policy formerly agreed upon at the time 
of their dispersion for the summer. The first public indication of this took the 
shape of an informal notice in the Globe, an evening newspaper professing neu- 
trality in our struggle, and occasionally used for that reason to express official 
opinions, which, not without a little sharpness towards Mr. Gladstone, drew a 
clear line between him and the ministry in regard to the sentiments in his speech. 
The next and more marked proof is to be found in the report of a speech made 
by Sir George (Jornewall Lewis, and published in the morning papers, which is 
palpably designed to neutralize the influences which might have been and which 
in many quarters undoubtedly were drawn of an actual change in the cabinet 
policy. 

Putting these things together, I was led to the belief that it was wiser for me 
not to meddle with the matter at all just now, but rather to let it blow over as 
a nine days' wonder. I prefer to avoid any appearance of anxiety or of distrust 
in the sincerity of the profession thus far made, and still more any proceeding 
which might be construed minatory. I shall therefore let this week pass away 
without making any sign of consciousness of what is going on. 



222 

On the other hand, the fact is very certain that the departure of Lord Lyons 
has been again postponed. The last time I saw him he announced to me that 
he should go on the 11th. Yet he is still here, and there is no sign of his im- 
mediate moving. Concurrently with this delay comes a notice that the first 
cabinet council is called for the 23d instant, which is earlier than usual, and in- 
timations appear that one reason for this anticipation is the urgent nature of the 
American difficulty. Without putting too much stress on these unauthorized 
conjectures, it is perfectly fair to infer some connexion between the approxima- 
tion of the cabinet meeting and the postponement of Lord Lyons's return. I do 
not therefore doubt that the opportunity will be taken to reconsider the situa- 
tion, and to lay down the line of policy for the regulation of the minister during 
the subsequent season. How far the question of a recognition of the insurgents 
will enter into the deliberation I will not venture to predict. My own opinion 
is that that event now depends almost entirely on the fortune of the war. If 
we prove ourselves by February next no more able to control its results than 
we are at this moment, it will be difficult for ministers longer to resist the cur- 
rent of sentiment leaning in that direction in both houses of Parliament. I do 
not know that many of them will be longer inclined to do so. Even the un- 
pleasant alternative of appearing to uphold slavery against the action of a free 
government will be acquiesced in as an overruling necessity dictated by the 
popular opinion. I feel it my duty to say thus much, in order to prevent the 
smallest misconception of the existing state of things on this side in the minds 
of the government at home. 

But it has occurred to me that, prior to this day of meeting, it may be ex- 
pedient for me to solicit an interview with Lord Russell to dispose of other 
matters which have been left pending for some time past. I may then be able 
incidentally to open a way to the subject most interesting to both countries, and 
to invite informal disclosures, if any are to be made, as well as in the same way 
to intimate probabilities which may ensue in certain contingencies that can be 
imagined. The matter requires delicate treatment, but, as at present advised, 
I am inclined to venture upon the experiment. Whatever the results of it may 
be, I shall endeavor to lay them faithfully before you in my next. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Wasliington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seicard. 



No. 244.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 23, 1862. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the department 
numbered 362 and 363 ; likewise a printed circular, No. 24, of the 25th of 
September, respecting the renewal of passports. This leaves two despatches, 
Nos. 360 and 361, yet unaccounted for. 

I now ti-ansmit a copy of Lord Russell's note to me of the 16th instant, in 
reply to mine of the 9th, a copy of which was forwarded with my despatch No. 
238, of the 10th of October. The attitude of indifference to the consequences 
of their own inaction under the provisions of the enlistment law is continued, 
and will probably remain to the last. In the meantime the vessel which was 
suffered to escape is continuing its piratical voyages on the ocean. Mr. Dudley 
will send you further particulars received by the captain of the ship Emily 
Farnum, who has arrived at Liverpool. I know not what has become of the 



223 

Tuscarora. The probabilities are that the next attack will be made on the 
California steamers. 

I Lave the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington,!). C. 



Foreign Office, October 16, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th 
instant, enclosing a copy of an intercepted letter which you had received from 
the United States government, being the further evidence with regard to the 
gunboat No. 290, to which you alluded in your previous communication to me 
of the 30th ultimo, and with reference to your observations with regard to the 
infringement of the enlistment law, I have to remark that it is true the foreign 
enlistment act, or any other act for the same purpose, can be evaded by very 
subtle contrivances ; but her Majesty's government cannot, on that account, go 
beyond the letter of the existing law. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, 
humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, 8p. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 248.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 24, 1862. 

Sir: Following up the plan suggested in my despatch No. 243, I asked an 
interview with Lord Russell. He gave it to me yesterday. The cabinet meet- 
ing appointed for that time had been postponed until to-day, which will yet be 
in season for the departure of Lord Lyons, who goes in the Scotia to-morrow. 
My surmise as to the connexion between the two events proved correct. 

I opened the conversation with a reference to the topic which had occupied us 
at our last meeting, the remonstrance of Lord Palmerston against a sentiment 
supposed to have been attributed to him by me on the strength of a statement 
made by the commander of the Quaker City. Since that time, I said that I had 
had communication with the government at home, and had received a despatch 
on the subject which seemed to me finally to dispose of it. I then read the es- 
sential parts of it, and expressed the hope that his lordship would communicate 
the information to Lord Palmerston. His lordship said that he would do so, and 
that this would dispense with the necessity of saying anything about it through 
Lord Lyons. 

I then turned in a half serious way to the departure of Lord Lyons, and ex- 
pressed a hope that he was about to go with a prospect of remaining for some 
length of time. For myseif I was obliged to confess that I had lately been 
called somewhat suddenly to the consideration of the condition, of my travelling 
equipage, in certain possible contingencies, which at one moment seemed to ap- 
proach more nearly than I liked. If I had trusted to the impressions generally 
prevailing here, directly after the delivery of a certain speech, my conclusions 
as to my departure would have been absolute. But I preferred to wait until 
later developments, like those which had since taken place, should give a more 



224 

definite idea of the extent of the authority to which it was entitled. The speech 
of Sir George Lewis had done ranch to set the balance once more even. 

His lordship took my allusion at once, though not without a slight indication 
of embarrassment. He said that Mr. Gladstone had evidently been much misun- 
derstood. I must have seen in the newspapers the letters which contained his 
later explanations. That he had certain opinions in regard to the nature of the 
struggle in America, as on all public questions, just as other Englishmen had, 
was natural enough. And it was the fashion here for public men to express 
such as they held in their public addresses. Of course it was not for him to 
disavow anything on the part of Mr. Gladstone ; but he had no idea that in 
saying what he had, there was a serious intention to justify any of the inferences 
that had been drawn from it, of a disposition in the government now to adopt a 
new policy. 

I replied that I did not expect a disavowal nor even did I seek to impute to 
Mr. Gladstone an intention of the kind referred to. At the same time, I could 
not sufficiently express my great regret at the occurrence on account of the ill 
effects it was likely to have upon the relations of the two countries. On the one 
side, it would be reprinted in every newspaper in America, and construed as an 
official exposition of the policy of the government; and in this view it was 
scarcely necessary for me to say how much it would tend to increase the irritation 
already very great there. On the other, it was having a great effect in concen- 
trating the popular inclination in this kingdom which was swaying every day 
more and more unfavorably to us. I regretted to be obliged to confess that from 
the day of my arrival, I had observed a regular and steady decline of good will 
towards the United States. Lord Lyons had been to see me in the morning. 
Whilst we had united in deploring the respective tendencies on the two sides, 
we had also joined in expressing our intention to continue our utmost efforts to 
counteract them. But for my part I was much less sanguine of success when I 
perceived the influences brought to bear upon opinion here by leading men. 

Lord Russell admitted that opinions were much divided and that there had 
been an unfavorable change to us going on. But he still thought that in most pop- 
ular meetings the greater number would sympathize with the United States. 

To which I replied that, admitting it might be so now, this slight preponder- 
ance would soon disappear under the effect of two or three more speeches like 
that of Mr. Gladstone. Whilst I was willing to acquit him of any deliberate 
intention to bring on the worst effects, I could not conceal from myself the fact 
that he was doing it quite as certainly as if he had one. 

His lordship intimated as guardedly as possible, that Lord Palmerston and 
other members of the government regretted the speech, and Mr. Gladstone him- 
self was not disinclined to correct, so far as he could, the misinterpretation which 
had been made of it. It was still their intention to adhere to the rule of perfect 
neutrality in the struggle, and to let it come to its natural end without the 
smallest interference, direct or otherwise. But he could not say what circum- 
stances might happen from month to month in the future. I observed that the 
policy he mentioned was satisfactory to us, and asked if I was to understand him 
as saying that no change of it was now proposed. To which he gave his assent. 

I remarked that this answer left me nothing more to trouble him with, and 
then took my leave. 

I ought to observe that before my interview, I met with Baron Brunuow, the 
IJpssian ambassador, in the ante-chamber, and he took me aside on his return 
from his conference to express his firm belief that the government here intended 
faithfully to adhere to their policy. He reminded me of a former meeting of the 
same kind, when I appeared to doubt, and he had said the same thing. So far, 
he had proved to be right. I admitted the fact, but added that at some future 
time I might, perhaps, be able to put him in possession of the evidence which 
had then affected my judgment. I could not do it just now. 



225 

The public speeches of members of Parliament to their constituents appear in 
the papers almost every day. I think they are much more guarded than they 
were just after Mr. Gladstone's. The general opinion now is that he was very 
indiscreet. But I see no change in the current. Indeed, nothing short of a very 
decisive victory in Virginia will avail to check it. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 249.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 24, 1862. 

Sir : It is proper for me to say that I receive from a credible source intima- 
tions that some of the escapes from the blockade are known here to have been 
effected by connivance and bribes to the officers commanding United States 
vessels. I know not myself how to account for some of the statements current 
here in any other way. I feel it my duty to make this representation without 
meaning to implicate any person in particular, only because the prevalence of 
such rumors in this country do much harm to the national character. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Sewarb, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 250.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 28, 1862. 

Sir : There is so decided an official tone in the leader in the Globe of Satur- 
day last, that I deem it advisable to put you in possession of it out of the ordi- 
nary course. The cabinet meeting which was called for Thursday did not 
take place; but there can be no doubt that the policy marked out in this publi- 
cation must have been informally agreed upon for the guidance of Lord Lyons 
on his departure the same day. Doubtless his lordship will have himself en- 
lightened you before this arrives. 

The insurrection in Greece is a new event, not unlikely to be productive of 
further complications in Europe. The agitation of the eastern question, as in- 
dicated in the published correspondence between the Russian and the British 
cabinets, is also an element of importance in estimating the probabilities of the 
approaching year. Possibly the rapid increase of clouds in this atmosphere 
may have had its effect in producing the most decided manifestation of good 
will to the President that has been made since I have been here. The effect 
here will be beneficial. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

15 



226 

[From the London Daily Globe of October 25.] 

Lord Lyons leaves England to-day to resume his post as the representative 
of her Majesty at Washington. We have no doubt that the ability and discre- 
tion by which his tenure of that office has been hitherto marked will continue 
to stand the country in good stead, and that our intercourse with the Presi- 
dent's government will remain as peaceful and uninterrupted as the best friends 
of England and America could wish. At a moment of great delicacy and diffi- 
culty Lord Lyons comported himself to the complete satisfaction of his govern- 
ment and the public, and should he have any similarly grave task before him, 
he will doubtless fulfil it with equal success. But the principal reason for our 
confidence in anticipating smoothness in our transatlantic relations is based 
upon the great improbability of any cause of political differences arising between 
the government at Washington and our own. We hear, indeed, of something 
like an inadmissible course of proceeding on the part of Commodore Wilkes in 
the Bahamas. As yet our information is imperfect, and we are unable posi- 
tively to say how far that officer may have been trying to lay the foundation of 
a new chapter on international law, based on his own abnormal views, or 
whether he is merely exercising those rights in a somewhat vexatious manner, 
which are liberally accorded to belligerents by the usages of nations. But we 
feel sure that if Commodore Wilkes transgresses the fair bounds of warfare, his 
government will not sanction his acts, and as they repudiated him before, so, if 
there be occasion, they will repudiate him again. We have the fullest confi- 
dence that President Lincoln's government will not act in a manner to impose 
any unpleasant duty upon our representative at their capital. 

On the part of her Majesty's ministers we may feel equally confident that no 
course will be pursued calculated to give any just cause of offence to the still 
great state beyond the Atlantic. Up to this our policy as regards the northern 
States has been clear, wise, and unselfish, and it will continue so. If impres- 
sions have arisen that any immediate change in our position as regards the bel- 
ligerents was about to take place, and that Lord Lyons was to carry off in his 
pocket instructions likely to lead to a crisis on his landing, they have only 
originated in a kind of superabundant mental agility on the part of some of the 
public who have turned a fixed plank into a springboard, and have jumped 
from a minister's plain narration of a fact scarcely to be denied, to an exti-ava- 
gant and unjustifiable hypothesis. Many, no doubt, believed that the meeting 
of the cabinet appointed for last Thursday would result in the recognition of the 
southern confederacy, and those who somewhat inconsiderately press such an 
important step at the present moment upon the government have precedents cut 
and dried for our taking such a course. There is scarcely a single diplomatic 
step for which a precedent cannot be unearthed on both sides, and if the gov- 
ernment Avere merely to follow precedent in a case of such extreme gravity, they 
would be miserable doctrinaires, instead of statesmen fit to judge of a great 
question upon its merits and its practical bearings on the vast interests in- 
volved. Pedants and enthusiasts may not look at consequences ; but those who 
undertake to guide the councils of a great country must well weigh the advan- 
tages, and not only the probable but even the possible effects of what they 
recommend. Even those who are most eager for the recognition of the southern 
States as a member of the family of nations, even those who form the most san- 
guine estimate of its effects upon our own material interests, must admit that its 
accomplishment will precipitate upon us a future of great gravity, which it 
would be almost criminal for us to seek to hasten without the strongest reason 
and the most solemn consideration. We do not expect to find that her Ma- 
jesty's government have resolved on such a course, or that they have adopted 
a policy the very expediency of which is debatable, even if its accomplishment 
were less difficult. When we speak of its expediency we do not use the word 
iu any narrow or unworthy sense, but as regards the practical effect of the step 



227 

in prolonging or terminating the contest by which America is convulsed and 
Europe shocked. We have no doubt that in the interests of humanity and 
civilization the government of Great Britain would be glad to take any steps 
and assume any responsibility if there were a prospect of their being able to 
change this vast scene of fratricide into one of peace. But suggestions, still less 
interference, should only be offered where the circumstances render it probable 
that they would be effectual. In the present instance they would be met with 
difficulties at the very threshold, and might defeat their own object. While Ave 
all deplore the continuance of this struggle — while we would all make sacrifices 
to bring it to a termination — we must not forget the dictates of wisdom and 
avoid interference, at least until we have good reason to think it will not be 
useless or mischievous. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 253.] Legation of the United States, 

London, October 30, 1862. 

Sir: I have now received the missing despatches of last week (No. 360 and 
361) and likewise despatches numbered from 365 to 368, inclusive. 

The books referred to in No. 365, of the 7th of October, have likewise arrived 
in safety. 

Immediately after the reception of your No. 360, of the 30th of September, I 
applied to Lord Bussell for an interview, which I obtained this morning at half- 
past ten o'clock. I then stated to his lordship the substance of your communi- 
cation so far as was necessary to put him in a position to reply to the prelimi- 
nary inquiry whether his government was disposed to negotiate about it at all. 
He replied in the negative. I gathered from what he said that the whole mat- 
ter had been under consideration with the ministers for some time back, and 
that the Duke of Newcastle had had much correspondence with the authorities 
in the West India colonies about it. The conclusion had been that on the 
whole it might be the means of entangling them in some way or other with the 
difficulties in the United States by possible reclamations of fugitives or in some 
other way, or danger which they were most desirous to avoid. Hence they 
should not be inclined to enter upon negotiations, and least of all to adopt the 
form of a convention. 

I explained the reasons why we had wished to take this course, our object 
simply being to secure for those persons voluntarily disposed to emigrate (and we 
did not mean to include any others) the enjoyment of the rights to which they 
would be justly entitled as colonists. His lordship seemed so to understand it. 
But he remarked that some time ago an agent had been sent from the West In- 
dies to the United States to see if sufficient inducements could be held out to 
the free negroes to emigrate, but he had found them so comfortable and earning 
so much higher a rate of wages than could be obtained at the place he came 
from that any transfer of them seemed out of the question. 

I then referred to an application that had been made to me by a private indi- 
vidual here by the name of Davis, styling himself the representative of much 
landed property in the island of Jamaica, to obtain as many as five thousand 
families, to whom he would be ready to assign lands if the expense of transporta- 
tion could be paid for. I had answered the gentleman by referring him to my 
own government, and that only after he should have made his own aware of his 
object and ready to approve it. His lordship said he supposed that the grant 
of land would be only in consideration of labor. He thought it very likely that 
many of these people might ultimately find their way over from the United 
States, but he did not consider it expedient just now to make any provision 



228 

about it. He expressed a little surprise that Hayti had not been preferred. I 
observed that efforts had been made in that direction, and some emigrants had 
actually gone, but the negroes Avere sluggish to move, and they were deterred by 
the difference of language and habits. I had always thought that fewer obsta- 
cles would be found to removal to the English islands than to any other after 
it should once be set agoing. His lordship admitted it as very possible, at least 
to those of them where there was a sensible deficiency of labor. But the rate of 
wages, though rising, was still quite low. 

Under these circumstances, I remarked that it seemed of no use for me to 
press the point further. I should, accordingly, make report of his lordship's an- 
swer as definitively closing the matter. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 384.] Department of State. 

Washington, October 30, 1862. 

Sir: I send herewith a communication which has been received at this de- 
partment from the Secretary of the Navy, giving information of a breach of in- 
ternational obligations by the commander of her Britannic Majesty's gunboat 
Bull Dog, in July last, by transporting from Nassau to Bermuda one Pegram 
and seven other persons, who were proceeding from this country to England to 
take commands in the gunboat 290, a steam war vessel then being built, manned, 
and equipped in, and since despatched from, a British port, and since engaged in 
committing depredations on American commerce on the high seas, equally in 
violation of the treaties existing between Great Britain and the United States, 
the law of nations, and the laws of Great Britain. 

The President desires that you will bring the subject to the notice of Earl 
Russell, and ask that an examination of the case may be instituted, and that 
such redress may be thereafter afforded to the United States as the result of the 
investigation shall give them a right to expect. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sfc., fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Welles to Mr. Seward. 

Navy Department, October 29, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a communication re- 
ceived from Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, commanding the West India squad- 
ron, reporting the infraction of the neutrality regulations by the commander of 
her Britannic Majesty's gunboat Bull Dog, in transporting officers from Nassau 
to Bermuda, in July last, on their way to England to take charge of vessels 
about to fit out there under the rebel flag. 
Very respectfully, 

GIDEON WELLES, 

Secretary of the Navy. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



229 



Rear Admiral Wilkes to Mr. Welles. 

No. 4.] Flag Steamer Wachusett, 

Havana, October 11, 1862. 
Sir : I have to communicate to the department the infraction of the neutrality 
regulations by the commander of her Britannic Majesty's gunboat Bull Dog, in 
transporting Captain Pegram and seven officers from Nassau to Bermuda, in 
July last, on their way to England to take charge of the 290, or other vessels 
about to fit out there under the secesh flag, and that I have but little doubt 
that the officials, both at Nassau and Bermuda, were aware of and assented to 
the violation. This information I have from most reliable authority — those who 
knew Captain Pegram and Lieutenant Bennett well, and witnessed their arrival 
at Bermuda and embarcation on board the mail packet for Halifax. They staid 
but a few hours at Bermuda. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES WILKES, 
Rear Admiral, Commanding West India Squadron- 
Hon. Gideon Welles, 

Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 385.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 3, 1S62. 

Sir : The Arabia has not yet arrived at her destination, and her mails can 
hardly be expected before the hour appointed for the departure of this commu- 
nication. 

The military transactions which I have to relate are not striking, although 
they are not unimportant. The navy have reduced to occupation two new posi- 
tions on the southern coast — Sabine Pass and Galveston. The blockading fleet 
has captured three of the steamers which were fitted out in England and de- 
spatched from British ports with arms and other supplies from the insurgents. 

The Spanish authorities in Cuba make reclamation (justly if the facts sustain 
it) for a violation of their sovereignty in the driving ashore of and destruction 
of a British steamer, the Blanche, upon that island loaded with cotton. But on 
the other hand statements are made which show that the so-called Blanche was 
none other than the insurgent steamer General Rusk, freighted with four hun- 
dred slaves carried from Texas to Mulata, and that her loss was an act of self- 
destruction. 

General McClellan's army has crossed into Virginia, and its advance has 
already had some skirmishing with the insurgents in the rear of Leesburg, which 
is again reoccupied by the national forces. 

You will notice the statements of the press concerning an emeute of the colored 
population in the island of Saint Vincent. It is now said to have not merely a 
social but even a political signification. There are rumors, I know not how 
accurate, of uneasiness among the slaves in Cuba. The question becomes a 
serious one whether the political sympathies with slavery in the United States, 
which have been so universally cherished in Great Britain, are producing dis- 
contents among the whole African population, the free as well as the enslaved, 
in the West Indies. It is always dangerous for any people to abet treason in 
another country, and especially dangerous to force revolution in opposition to the 
progress of humanity. 



230 

The telegraph announces the destruction of another half dozen American 
vessels on the high seas hy the steamer 290. The President is obliged to regard 
these destructions as being made by British subjects in violation of the law of 
nations after repeated and ample notice, warning, and remonstrances had been 
given by you to the British government. It is presumed that you have already 
brought the subject in that light to the notice of her Majesty's government. 
The legal proofs in support of a claim for indemnity will be collected and trans- 
mitted to you as speedily as possible. 

It is hardly necessary to advise one so well acquainted as you are with the 
working of our system of popular elections against being disturbed by the 
exaggerations of the political canvass which closes to-day. No apprehensions 
of any change of the policy of the country in regard to the suppression of the 
insurrection are indulged here. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., S^c., S^c., Sfc. 

[Copy of an excerpt from newspaper.] 

New York, November 2. — Port Royal dates to the 29th ultimo have been 
received. 

Two British rebel steamers, the Anglia and Scotia, were captured on the 27th 
ultimo and taken to Port Royal. The two steamers, with their contraband 
cargoes, are valued at one million of dollars. 

Another British steamer, the Minaho, was run ashore and destroyed. 

It was reported at Port Royal that the rebel ram was coming down the river 
from Savannah. 



Mr. Setvard to Mr. Adams. 



No. 3S6.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 3, 1862. 

Sir : Mr. Dudley, our consul at Liverpool, informs us that two war vessels which 
are on the stays at Birkenhead are announced by the press as being built os- 
tensibly for the Chinese government, but really to depredate on American com- 
merce, as the 290 is doing. The President hopes that you will make such 
representations concerning them and all similar enterprises to her Majesty's 
government, as may induce them to consider whether it can be claimed that a 
nation is really neutral when vessels-of-war, without restraint and with im- 
punity, are built, armed, manned, equipped, and sent out from its ports to make 
war on a peaceful and friendly nation. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., $r., $r., fye. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 387.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 4, 1862. 
Sir: Your despatches by the Arabia are received, but there is not time for 
special notice of them before the closing of the mail. 



231 

All our land and naval operations are going on with vigor. Those who in 
Europe have supposed that this government is either idle or ineffective will be un- 
deceived in time, I trust, to abate their desires for measures which would bring 
the two continents into collision upon a question which belongs chiefly to 
America, but on which both continents ought to be agreed. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, Sfc., fyc. 



Mr Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 389.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 4, 1S62. 

Sir : Your despatch of October 17 has been submitted to the President. 
It is not pleasant to a loyal American to see a European cabinet discussing be- 
fore a European people the question whether they will continue to recognize the 
existence of this republic. But this is a part of the painful experience of the 
evil times upon which we have fallen. While treason goes abroad from among 
ourselves to invite foreign nations to intervene, we have no right to expect those 
nations to judge us candidly, much less to judge us kindly or wisely. It would 
be, above all things, unreasonable to expect such charitable judgments from 
political parties in foreign countries, intent only on tbe objects of their own ambi- 
tion. Fortunately we have the right to be free, independent, and at peace, 
whether European political parties wish us to be so or not. I think, also, we 
have the power to be so. While European parties, according to your represen- 
tation, are even more hostile to our country now than ever before, it is, on the 
other hand, a source of much satisfaction to know that this same country of ours 
not only is but also feels itself to be stronger and in better condition and posi- 
tion to .encounter dangers of foreign intervention than it has been at any former 
period ; and that if any additional motive were necessary to sustain its resolu 
tion to remain united, independent, and sovereign, that motive would be found 
in the intervention by a foreign state in the great and painful domestic transac- 
tions in which it is engaged. 

The wheel of political fortune makes rapid revolutions. It is less than three 
years since all Great Britain manifested itself desirous of the friendship of the 
United States. A similar desire may, before the lapse of a long period, occur 
again. Neither politicians nor statesmen control events. They can moderate 
them and accommodate their ambitions to them, but they can do no more. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sfc., fyc, Sfc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 390.] Department op State, 

Washington, November 4, 1S62. 

Sir : Your despatch of October 16 (No. 242) has been received. The Presi- 
dent regrets that he is unable to find in the proceedings of her Majesty's govern- 
ment satisfactory evidence that it proposes to render redress to the United States 
for the injuries sustained by their citizens in the arming, fitting out, and despatch 



232 

of the 290 on her errand of commercial devastation, or to prevent injurious en- 
terprises of the same character from heing carried into execution. Nevertheless, 
still trusting that the government of Great Britain may come, after careful con- 
sideration, to think the subject worthy of a review, the evidence in the case of 
the 290, as it shall be received, will be transmitted to you to be laid before Earl 
Russell. You will, in the meantime, communicate the effect of this despatch to 
his lordship. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 392.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 10, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of October 24 (No. 248) has been received. It is a source 
of satisfaction to know that the expectations that Great Britain would speedily 
give her aid to sustain the failing insurrection here, which disloyal citizens at 
home and abroad had built upon the extra-official speeches of the British chan- 
cellor of the exchequer, were unreal and purely imaginary. The President 
trusts that the day is far distant, indeed he hopes a day may never come, when 
two kindred nations shall consent to apply to purposes of mutual destruction 
energies which, if combined, are capable of carrying forward to a pitch never 
yet fully contemplated the improvement in the condition and character of man- 
kind. Such an apprehension could never have entered the American mind if it 
had not been schooled by the experiences of our unnatural civil war to fear that 
popular but ephemeral passion and prejudice may sometimes, in any country, 
over-master all sentiments of national prudence, truth, justice, and humanity. 

This government does not fail to see what Europe wants, and to see that it 
is just what the United States want, namely, a speedy and absolute conclusion 
of the war. Nor does the government fail to see that it is demanded with equal 
impatience on both continents. It may be possible that greater activity and en 
ergy than have been exhibited could have been put forth to secure that end. 
But it is believed that on a calm and critical examination it •will appear that, 
considering the situation of the country, the very popular character, and the 
very complex republican form of the constitution, the magnitude of the insur- 
rection, the peculiarity of the moral and dynastic principles which are involved, 
and the foreign influences which have intervened, the progress which the gov- 
ernment has made in suppressing the insurrection is an achievement which has 
never been surpassed. 

At the present we are apprehending no insurmountable obstacles to complete 
success. Our anny in Virginia, as you will leam from the newspapers, is al- 
ready approaching the Rapidan, without having encountered serious opposition. 
General Grant is advancing into the heart of Mississippi. General Rosecrans 
is moving forward in Tennessee. Expeditions by land and water, greater in 
force than any preceding one, will soon be on its way to the southern coast. 

The conviction which I have so confidently expressed to you during the last 
six weeks, that the insurrection is becoming exhausted, and which event seemed 
so strange at the time and under the circumstances when it was expressed, is 
now becoming generally accepted, and I see with pleasure that it begins to find 
favor in England. You did not exaggerate, in your conversation with Earl 
Russell, the injurious influences here of the speech of the chancellor of the ex- 



233 

chequer. Indeed, no one can even fully appreciate the importance which 
nations, when excited, attach to the conventional utterances of persons in 
authority. When it is remembered that a year ago the public mind in Great 
Britain, and even that of her Majesty's government, was affected by the repre- 
sentation of alleged speeches and conversations of my own, delivered before my 
coming into my present position, it seems strange that a British minister should 
be willing to speak, extra-officially and without a government purpose, upon an 
American question in a sense which might be interpreted as one of intervention, if 
not of menace. It was to prevent all such unfortunate proceedings on the part 
of the representatives of the United States that the new restraints upon our 
ministers and consuls, of which you have already been advised, were imposed. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWAKD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sfc., fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 394.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 10, 1862. 

Sir : It is probable that the ground which the enemies of the Union in 
Europe will next assume, in prosecuting their war against it, will be an alleged 
defection of popular support of the government at the elections recently held in 
the loyal States. The reports of the results of these elections in the forms 
adopted by the press are calculated, though not designed, to give plausibility to 
this position. I observe that these reports classify the members of Congress 
chosen as union and democratic, or union and opposition. Such classifications, 
though unfortunate, do less harm here, where all the circumstances of the case 
are known, than abroad, where names are understood to mean what they ex- 
press. Last year, when the war began, the republicans, who were a plurality 
of the electors, gave up their party name, and, joining with loyal democrats, put 
in nomination candidates of either party under the designation of a union party. 
The democratic party made but a spiritless resistance in the canvass. From 
whatever cause it has happened, political debates during the present year have 
resumed, in a considerable degree, their normal character, and while loyal re- 
publicans have adhered to the new banner of the union party, the democratic 
party has rallied and made a vigorous canvass with a view to the recovery of 
its former political ascendency. Loyal democrats in considerable number re- 
taining the name of democracy from habit, and not because they oppose the 
Union, are classified by the other party as " opposition." It is not necessary for 
the information of our representatives abroad that I should descend into any 
examination of the relative principles or policies of the two parties. It will 
suffice to say that while there may be men of doubtful political wisdom and 
virtue in each party, and while there may be differences of opinion between 
the two parties as to the measures best calculated to preserve the Union and 
restore its authority, yet it is not to be inferred that either party, or any con- 
siderable portion of the people of the loyal States, is disposed to accept disunion 
under any circumstances, or upon any terms. It is rather to be understood that 
the people have become so confident of the stability of the Union that partisan 
combinations are resuming their sway here, as they do in such cases in all free 
countries. In this country, especially, it is a habit not only entirely consistent 
with the Constitution, but even essential to its stability, to regard the adminis 



234 

tration at any time existing; as distinct and separable from the government itself, 
and to canvass the proceedings of the one without the thought of disloyalty to 
the other. We might possibly have had quicker success in suppressing the in- 
surrection if this habit could have rested a little longer in abeyance; but, on the 
other hand, we are under obligations to save not only the integrity or unity of 
the country, but also its inestimable and precious Constitution. No one can 
safely say that the resumption of the previous popular habit does not tend to 
this last and most important consummation, if at the same time, as we confi- 
dently expect, the Union itself shall be saved. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Sfc., Sfc., Sfc., London. 






Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 395.] Department of State, 

Washington, Nove?nber 10, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of the 24th of October (No. 249) has been received. I 
have lost no time in communicating the information it contains to the Secretary of 
the Navy, and he will doubtlessly direct an inquiry to be made upon the subject. 
In the meantime I am authorized to say that the President, while he thinks 
that possibly some of our naval officers might, in some cases, have practiced 
greater energy in enforcing the blockade, has had no reason to question either 
the integrity or the loyalty of any one intrusted with that honorable command. 
When we consider the number of contraband vessels recently captured or de- 
stroyed, it seems probable that the communications which we shall next receive 
from Europe will be of a character very different from the one now before me. 
Instead of suggestions for explaining too great laxity, I expect that we shall 
soon again hear complaints of too great rigor. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc., fyc, Sfc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 396.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 10, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of the 23d of October (No. 244) has been received. The 
President regrets that her Majesty's government has not more favorably con- 
sidered our complaints against the violations of municipal and international 
law, committed by British subjects under the British flag, in the case of the 



235 

steamer " 290," or "Alabama." It is to be apprehended that attempts by the 
same and similar vessels to repeat the same injuries will ultimately require a 
more deliberate consideration of the subject than the government now seems 
willing to accord. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc„ Sfc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 399.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 14, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of October 28 (No. 250) has been received. The Presi- 
dent is gratified with the indications of the appearances of a less intoler- 
ant opinion in the political circles of Great Britain, to which you have directed 
his attention. It is surely quite time that there should be a change. Think, 
for a moment, of the singular transaction in which this government is now actu- 
ally engaged, namely, the fortifying of New York harbor to resist a piratical 
expedition coming from Liverpool — Liverpool, a chief port of a great nation 
with whom we are at peace,. to whose capitalists we are sending gold, and whose 
sufferings we are supplying with bread. It seems too strange to believe, and 
yet what menace of this kind can we discredit after the experience of our mer- 
chantmen destroyed on the high seas by the Alabama. 

Lord Lyons has arrived and he has been received as he deserves, with a 
friendly and cordial welcome. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARL}. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 403.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 18, 1862. 

Sir: The European mail comes in at the moment of the sealing the outgoing 
despatches. 

The military movements, though important, are not striking. Major General 
Burnside, now in command of the army of the Potomac, has put it in motion, and 
events of some significance may be expected within a few days. A part of 
Major General Banks' expedition is already afloat, and the whole will probably 
reach the important destination within a week. Some successful movements 
have been made in North Carolina and in Louisiana. Major General Grant is 
advancing with apparent success in Mississippi, and additional columns to move 
by land and water are proceeding towards the Gulf from Cairo and St. Louis. 
General Kosecrans is advancing towards the enemy in East Tennessee. A 
general conviction that the war is moving on towards an early and successful 



236 

conclusion is taking possession of the popular mind. It is based as much upon 
the evidences of exhaustion of the insurgents as upon our own military move- 
ments. Mr. Ericsson seems to be successful in giving new and wonderful effi- 
ciency to the iron-clad steamer, and we begin to expect tbat the power which 
we have been so long preparing in that form will be in readiness for the piratical 
navy which, we are warned, is coming from the British shore to the rescue of the 
insurrection. The blockading squadron seems to have of late been very effec- 
tive. Its captures have been so many and important as to excite a hope that 
the contraband trade will fall into discouragement. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Sfc., Sfc., 8fc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 404.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 18, 1862. 

Sir : Your despatch of October 30th (No. 253) has been received. 

Your proceedings in submitting to Earl Russell the proposition of this govern- 
ment in regard to the voluntary colonization of Americans of African descent 
in the British colonies are approved. The question of an ultimate disposition of 
this portion of our population has been abruptly forced into discussion by the 
civil war. If events occurring at home had left us at liberty to overlook it, 
the suggestions which have been made to us on the subject, directly as well as 
indirectly, from foreign countries, could not wisely be treated with neglect. 
Under these circumstances the President has thought it judicious to hear and to 
consider carefully the various projects which are offered, and to afford facilities 
for experimental trial of these projects, so far as can be done consistently with 
sound policy and with the promotion of justice and humanity. While some of 
them are thus ascertained to be impracticable, it may be hoped, nevertheless, 
that we are drawing near to the discovery of a feasible policy which will solve, 
perhaps, the most difficult political problem that has occurred in the progress of 
civilization on the American continent. It may be well for you to state to Earl 
Russell that this government entertains no sentiment of dissatisfaction with his 
declination of our proposition. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, #c.. Sfc. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



No. 257.] Legation of the United States, 

London, November 6, 1862. 

Sir : From representations made by Mr. Dudley, the consul at Liverpool, 
which lead to the belief that the pirate 290 is about to return to its old cruising 
ground off the western islands, I have been induced once more to call the atten- 
tion of the officers of the Tuscarora and Kearsarge to the necessity of protect- 



237 

ing the trade from India. I fear that neither of them separately, nor indeed 
hoth together, are any match for the shrewdness and enterprise of Captain 
Semmes, who has a vessel very capable of escaping from every risk of encoun- 
ter. The exploits of this vessel by no means give rise to a feeling of entire 
satisfaction on this side of the water. A strong proof of this is to be found in 
the proceedings of the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool, where is the greatest 
sympathy with the rebellion. Mr. Dudley will undoubtedly furnish you with 
a copy of them. The leading newspapers in London have discussed the subject 
according to their biases ; but not without betraying a good deal of misgiving 
as to the position of their government in respect to it, although they are evi- 
dently without the knowledge of all the facts. I am told, though not by au- 
thority, that some parties who yet hold an interest in her, from not having been 
paid, have taken advice as to the extent of their responsibility in case of recla- 
mations being made. Having myself considered from the outset such a proceed- 
ing probable, I have shaped my course in my correspondence with Lord Russell 
mainly to the preparation of a record to sustain it. 

The activity in forwarding supplies of all sorts to the British islands continues 
unabated. I learn that orders from Charleston to procure Armstrong and Whit- 
worth guns, at any cost, are in process of execution in anticipation of an ex- 
pected attack on that point. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 



No. 408.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 21, 1862. 

Sir: Your despatch of November 6 (No. 257) has been received, and the 
measure you adopted of directing the attention of the commanders of the Tus- 
carora and Kearsarge to the new piratical proceedings threatened by the 290 is 
approved. I have already communicated the information which your despatch 
brings to the Secretary of the Navy. 

Our consul at Quebec writes that the British war steamer Ariadne has been 
sent from that place by Rear Admiral Milne to cruise for the same offender. 
Having accepted this information as true, it excites some surprise to find that 
the purpose of the British government in this respect has not been made known 
to you in London. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., fyc, fyc., Sp. 



238 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 
Washington, December 3, 1861. 

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship's 
note of the 30th November last, in which you review the explanations of the 
Secretary of the Navy which I have submitted to you concerning the cases of 
two seamen of the British schooner Revere, and two other seamen of the Brit- 
ish schooner Louisa Agnes, which two schooners were captured, though at 
different times, in attempts to break the blockade of the ports held by the insur- 
gents. I have read your objections to these explanations with great care, and, 
as I trust, with candor, inspired by a sincere desire to concede to the complain- 
ants whom you represent any redress to which they might be found entitled, 
and to preserve the best possible understanding with the government of Great 
Britain. The Secretary's explanations do, in fact, show, as you have assumed 
that the two seamen of the schooner Revere were confined for two or three 
days in single irons in the day time, and in double irons during the night, and 
that after the period thus passed they were left at liberty during the greater part 
of the day but confined at night. I cannot admit, however, that you are per- 
fectly jnst in calling this confinement hard treatment. You notice the expla- 
nation, that confinement of the seamen with irons to the extent practiced was 
resorted to in order to prevent their rising and retaking the vessel; but you 
object that no information is given from which an opinion can be formed as to 
the reasonableness of the precaution, and that no evidence is adduced of there 
having been ground for suspecting the men of a design to retake the vessel, or 
for apprehending that they had the means of executing such a design. Whether 
the restraints practiced upon the two seamen in question were "hard treatment " 
and a severe measure, as you have characterized them, or whether it was proper 
treatment, of course depends altogether, as you seem to admit, upon the circum- 
stance whether those restraints exceeded the rigor which reasonable prudence 
required for the security of the capturing vessel and her prize on their way to 
port for adjudication. 

You seem to have assumed that any confinement of the seamen, especially in 
irons, in such a case must by law be presumed to be unnecessary, and therefore 
unreasonable and severe, and that consequently it devolves upon the officer who 
makes the capture to exculpate himself from the general charge of hardness or 
severity by showing that the rigor practiced was necessary in the act complained 
of. I submit, on the contrary, that in these as in all other cases it rests with 
the complainant to show in his statement the facts and circumstances which con- 
stitute the grievance, before the accused party can be called upon to deny, or at 
least justify, the conduct alleged against him. I proceed to examine the case 
of the two seamen of the Revere in the light of this rule. 

On the 6th of October your lordship addressed me a note, in which you stated 
that you therewith handed to me a copy of a despatch as well as a copy of a 
letter and an attested copy of an affidavit. You added that you desired to re- 
commend to my favorable consideration the request to which those papers re- 
ferred, that the mate of the British schooner Revere, who appeared to be 
detained at Fortress Monroe, might appear at Boston as a witness for the defence 
of the vessel before the prize court at that city. You added that you desired 
also to direct my attention to the unusual manner in which the master and crew 
of the Revere appeared to have been treated, and especially to the fact of 
two of the crew having been kept (as it would seem very unjustly) in irons. 
You closed with requesting me to return the attested copy of the affidavit to 
you. Your request that the captain might be allowed to appear at the prize 



239 

court was promptly granted. The attested copy of an affidavit was returned to 
you as requested, without a copy of it having been taken in this department, as 
it was not then supposed that you thought it would be useful beyond the pur- 
pose of showing that you had grounds for calling my attention to the subject of 
the confinement of the seamen. It is necessary to state that the despatch was 
silent upon the subject of the confinement of tbe seamen. A copy of your note, 
together with a copy of the despatch annexed to it, was, on the 7th day of Oc- 
tober, the very day of their receipt, by me submitted to the Secretary of the 
Navy with a request in general terms for the information necessary to enable me 
to reply to the note. 

On the 11th of November I had the honor to receive from your lordship a 
second note bearing date on the 7th of that month, in which you recited that on 
the 10th of October (meaning the 6th) you had directed my attention to the un- 
usual manner in which the master and crew of the British schooner Revere 
appeared to have been treated after the capture of their vessel by the United 
States ship Cambridge, and especially to the fact that two of the crew had 
been kept in irons. You then proceeded to lay before me another and kindred 
complaint about the rigor practiced, as you assumed, upon two seamen of another 
and different vessel. But you gave me no information whatever concerning the 
two seamen of the Revere A copy of this last paper was transmitted by me 
to the Secretary of the Navy on the 12th day of November. The Secretary of 
the Navy having called Flag-Officer Goldsborough's attention to the two com- 
plaints as thus submitted to me in very general terms, that officer reported to 
the Secretary of the Navy by sending him the papers, copies of which were 
transmitted to you, and which you have found so unsatisfactory. These papers 
show that the irons which were used had been placed on board for the protec- 
tion of the prize master, and to be used by him when deemed necessary. I am 
informed that irons are always provided and kept on board blockading vessels 
as a necessary precaution. So customary is this that a naval officer who, being 
charged with the maintaining of a blockade, should lose his own vessel, or even 
a prize, for want of this precaution, would justly incur punishment at the hands 
of his government. The papers show that Lieutenant Gwin, the executive officer 
of the Cambridge, certainly had injunctions from the commander that the 
crews were to have every indulgence their case would admit of, and that they 
should be made as comfortable as possible. Upon the capture of the Revere 
he put the prize master on board of her, with the irons, with instructions to use 
them if he should deem it necessary. The prize master, going with probably 
only two or three loyal seamen spared from the Cambridge, it appears, did 
deem it necessary at first to put the two captured seamen in irons until their 
dispositions should be ascertained. When it is considered that these seamen 
were strangers to him, captured, disappointed in the objects of their voyage, and 
conveyed, against their wishes and will, to a distant and, to them, foreign port, 
by an authority in the exercise of a belligerent power, I think that it might have 
been reasonably apprehended by the prize master that if left from the first entirely 
free they might attempt the life of the prize master, or at least the deliverance 
of the prize. Using the same form of illustration as before, I think that the 
prize master, who having irons put into his hands for his own safety and the 
security of the prize vessel, should nevertheless have lost the prize by its being 
recaptured by captives whom he had not confined, would justly be dismissed 
from the naval service. Whether the prize master might not with safety have 
released the two seamen from their confinement in irons, at an earlier day or 
hour, remains uncertain. It should seem right if he has exercised his best dis- 
cretion in a case in which his discretion was necessarily the rule of his conduct, 
unless, indeed, it shall be affirmatively shown that he wilfully or negligently 
abused his power over the unwilling and reluctant seamen. That he did not 
so abuse his power seems to me to be clearly proved by the fact that all of the 



240 

officers of the Cambridge testified that the seamen made no complaints on 
leaving the Cambridge, and, on the contrary, spoke in good terms of their 
treatment, and that the commander of the Cambridge declares that he is as- 
tonished at the complaint of ill treatment, and, with the best sources of informa- 
tion open to him, denies those assertions altogether. 

It remains to say that the government, having no sufficient ground, cannot 
agree that the two seamen in question in the present case were hardly treated or 
made to suffer unnecessary hardship. For this reason I cannot admit, what your 
lordship seems to claim, that the Secretary of the Navy ought to have expressed 
his disapproval of the proceedings of the officers of the Cambridge, or that he 
ought, in view of the whole case, to have expressed an intention to take means 
to secure considerate treatment in future to British seamen in similar circum- 
stances. At the same time this government means and intends to conduct its 
operations upon the highest principles of humanity known in maritime proceed- 
ings, and especially with a view to the exercise of justice and moderation, so far 
as these proceedings affect Great Britain and other friendly powers, and, there- 
fore, a copy of these papers will be addressed to the flag-officers of the blockading 
squadrons, accompanied by an instruction from the Secretary of the Navy to 
use irons only when and so long as necessary, and in all cases to practice the 
utmost kindness consistent with the safety of captives and prizes towards sea- 
men captured in attempting to break the blockade. 

I avail myself of the opportunity to renew to your lordship the assurance of 
my high consideration. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 
Washington, December 3, 1861. 

I refer again to your lordship's note of the 30th of November for the purpose 
of saying that the case of the two seamen of the British schooner Louisa Agnes, 
which was captured on a charge of attempting to run the blockade, seems to stand 
so nearly on the same footing with that of the two seamen captured on board of 
the British schooner Revere, which I have disposed of in a previous note of this 
date, that I pray your lordship to accept my reply in the latter case as express- 
ing the opinions of this government upon the former case also. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lordship's obedient 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, Sfc., Sfc., fye. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 



Department of State, 
Washington, December 11, 1861. 

My Lord: Your lordship's note of December 9, relating to minors who, being 
British subjects, have been enlisted in the army, has been received. I thank you 
for bringing the subject again to my attention. 



241 

I liave to state with perfect frankness that the law which directs the dismissal 
of minors enlisted in the army without consent of their parents was enacted in a 
time of peace when there was no prospect of foreign war or domestic insurrection 
such as is now existing. 

The operation of the law has been found very injurious in the present 
case, and at one time it concurred with other causes which seemed to threaten 
a serious demoralization of the forces of the United States under circumstances 
of much anxiety and solicitude. 

The Secretary of War at that moment was disinclined to give the law prompt 
and complete effect in regard to American citizens who came within the scope 
of its provisions, and considerations of public safety rendered it xinwise to dis- 
criminate against them and in favor of the subjects of other states who had been 
at their own desire enlisted into the service of the United States. Another 
circumstance entered into the case increasing the embarrassment of the question. 
It was reported in many cases that the parents of minors favored their enlist- 
ment, suppressing the fact of their minority until after they had come into 
service, and then fraudulently sought to avail themselves of the letter of the law 
to procure their discharge, to the great detriment of the public service and the 
possible danger of the country. 

I have now consulted with the Secretary of "War freely upon this subject, and, 
as a result of that consultation, I have to inform you that all the cases mentioned 
in your communication of the 9th instant, (now before me,) will be taken up and 
disposed of by the War Department, and wherever it is clearly shown that the 
soldier is a British subject, and a minor within the meaning of the law, an order 
will be made for his discharge. With this view, the list of names attached to 
your note will be filed in the War Department for reference. To expedite your 
wishes, it will probably be best that you furnish me the proofs in all these cases, if 
convenient to you, instead of excluding those heretofore furnished by you. This 
suggestion, however, is made simply with a view to a greater despatch in the 
business. If you wish it I will collect the proofs already furnished. So much, 
if you please, as to the past and present cases. 

I am now to inform you that the President will immediately ask Congress to 
revise the law in question and modify its provisions, so that they shall be sus- 
pended during the continuance of this insurrection. Unable to foresee Avhat 
Congress may do, the government will not deem itself bound to take up any new 
cases that may be presented, either in regard to Americans or foreigners found 
in the army and claiming the benefit of the law, until sufficient time shall have 
elapsed to obtain the will of Congress upon the subject. 

Your lordship will, of course, understand that the remarks with which I have 
opened this note are intended not as an argument against the claims upon which 
you have insisted with entire propriety and great delicacy, but as explaining the 
delay in disposing of the subject which has occurred, a delay which the govern- 
ment regrets as much as your lordship. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lordship's obedient 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c, &c, &c. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 

Washington, December 16, 1861. 

Sir: I have this afternoon had the honor to receive two notes from you 
dated thirteen days ago, and a third dated twelve days ago. They relate to the 
representations which I felt it to be my duty to address to you with regard to the 

16 



242 

treatment to which seamen belonging -to the British schooners Revere and Louisa 
Agnes were subjected by officers of the United States navy. It is not my pur- 
pose, on the present occasion, to make any observations on their contents. I 
hasten, however, to inform you that they have only reached me to-day, lest I 
should be deemed guilty of discourtesy in not having acknowledged the receipt 
of tbem until so long after their dates. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, hum- 
ble servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, fyc, 8fc., $c. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 

Washington, January 4, 1S61 [2.] 

Sir : It has become my painful duty to communicate to you the intelligence 
of the death of his Royal Highness the prince consort. 

His Royal Highness expired at Windsor Castle at ten minutes before eleven 
o'clock on the night of the 14th of last month. 

Letters announcing this mournful event to the President of the United States 
will be forwarded as soon as they can be submitted for her Majesty's signature. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, 
humble servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, §c, fyc, §c. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department op State, 

Washington, January 7, 1862. 
My Lord : With reference to your private note of the 30th ultimo, in which 
mention is made of the imprisonment of three of the crew of the British 
schooner Adeline, and of the oath exacted from them as a condition of their 
release, and to my reply, I now have the honor to enclose to you for information 
the copy of a communication of the 4th instant, addressed to this department 
by the Secretary of the Navy, on the subject. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your lordship the assurance of 
my high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, fyc, fyc, Sfc. 



Mr. Welles to Mr. Seward. 



Navy Department, January 4, 1862. 
Sir : I have had the honor to receive your communication of the 31st ultimo, 
in reference to the conditional release of three of the crew of the British 
schooner Adeline, captured for a breach of the blockade by Commander Max- 
well Woodhull, of the United States steamer Connecticut. 



243 

Commander Woodhull has been informed that, in jour opinion, the require- 
ment exacted by him is not warranted by public law, and that the three alleged 
British subjects in question are, consequently, to be considered as absolved from 
the obligation required of them. I have also given instructions to the flag-offi- 
cers of the blockading squadrons, so that a similar condition for the release of 
persons found on board of prizes, or vessels charged with a breach of the block 
ade, may not in future be exacted. 

I transmit herewith, for your information, an extract from a report of Com- 
mander Woodhull in relation to the release of the parties, &c. 
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GIDEON WELLES. 
, Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



[Extract.] 

United States Steamer Connecticut, 

Brooklyn Navy Yard, December 17, 1861. 
zg IR .####*###* 

Among the persons found on board the schooner Adeline (one of the above 
prizes) was a citizen of Georgia, Captain Hardee, commanding a company of 
artillery, now located in one of the forts near Savannah. He was connected 
with the Adeline as her supercargo, and, by his own acknowledgment, a bearer 
of despatches from Messrs. Mason and Slidell, which documents he threw over- 
board a few moments before our boat boarded the schooner. I understand also 
that he is the nephew of Colonel Hardee, late of the United States army, now 
a general of the rebel forces. He is of an influential family, who, doubtless, 
will use great exertion to obtain his release or exchange. Under these circum- 
stances 1 determined to bring him north and place him in charge of the United 
States marshal at New York to await the further orders of the government. 

It was also my desire to bring with me the captain of the Adeline, her pilot 
and mate, "old offenders," having, by their own admission, and other evidence, 
satisfactorily proved that they had run the blockade several times before, but, 
as they were claimed as British subjects by her Britannic Majesty's vice-consul at 
Key West, I did, by advice (though not of my own judgment) of Judge Mar- 
vin, conclude to liberate them, first, however, causing the said consul to furnish 
me with written personal obligation, under oath, not to again embark in a like 
enterprise or interfere with the legitimate object of the United States govern- 
ment in suppressing the rebellion. *##### 

M. WOODHULL, 
Commander United States Navy. 

Hon. Gideon Welles, 

Secretary of the Navy, Washington City. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 



Department of State,. 

Washington, January 7, 1862. 
My Lord : I receive with deep sensibility the painful intelligence you have 
communicated to me of the death of his Royal Highness the prince consort of 
her Majesty, your sovereign. 



244 

Your lordship is not unaware of the high regard for her Majesty which is 
entertained, not only by the government, but by the whole people of the United 
States, and that this consideration also was extended to and embraced the just, 
liberal, and enlightened prince, whose too early death has now brought her 
Majesty into the experience of tbe greatest of afflictions. 

But I forbear from expressing myself at large on the subject now, reserving 
the expression of the national sympathies on the occasion for the President of 
the United States, to whom it will be my sad duty to communicate, when received 
directly, the official information of the mournful event you have announced to me. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lordship's obedient 
servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. ; 

Right Hon. Lord Lyons. 



Mr. Steward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 

Washington, January S, 1862. 

My Lord : Adverting to my note to you of the 3d instant, relative to the 
improper position in which the British flag was placed on board the scboarier 
James Campbell, captured on a charge of breach of blockade, I now have the 
honor to enclose to you, for your information, the copy of a further communica- 
tion just received from the Secretary of the Navy on that subject. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lordship's obedient 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, §c, fyc., fyc. 



Mr. Welles to Mr. Seward. 



Navy Department, January 7, 1862. 
Sir : Referring to my letter of the 2d instant, I have the honor to transmit 
herewith an extract from a communication received from Acting Master John 
Baker, in explanation of his conduct in taking the prize schooner James 
Campbell into New York with the British flag flying under the American. 
I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 

GIDEON WELLES. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 

[Extract.] 

New York, January 3, 1862. 
Sir : I received your order to-day stating for me to make a written statement 
and explain the reason for hoisting the English flag under the American. Com- 
modore, not being acquainted with the customs of fetching in prizes, I was 
under the impression that I was right. My intention was to do right, but it 
was not done for any bad purpose or intention to insult the English flag in any 
way whatever. I was wrong for so doing, and truly hope the department will 
forgive me. ######## 

JOHN BAKER, 
Acting Master United States Navy. 
Commodore Paulding. 



245 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 

Washington, January 9, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the notes from the 
State Department of the 3d and 8th instant, relative to the unseemly position 
in which the British flag was placed on hoard the captured vessel James 
Campbell, in New York harbor. 

No sooner did the superior naval authorities of the United States at New 
York perceive the position in which the flag was placed, than they ordered it 
to be removed. Commodore Paulding, moreover, immediately wrote to her 
Majesty's consul to express his regret at the occurrence. He was, besides, so 
good as to address a letter to the commander of her Majesty's ship Racer, 
disavowing, in behalf of the government of the United States, any intention to 
show disrespect to the British flag. 

Finally, it appears from the report of the prize mastei*, of which you have 
now clone me the honor to send me a copy, that he acted from ignorance and 
without any intention to slight the flag. 

Under these circumstances it only remains for me to express my thanks for 
the prompt measures which have been taken by the United States authorities 
to do away with the unpleasant impression produced by the error of the prize 
master. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, 
humble servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 8fc., fyc., Sfc. 



Earl Russell to Lord Lyons. 

Foreign Office, January 10, 18G2. 

My Lord : In my despatch to you of the 30th of November, after informing 
you of the circumstances which had occurred in relation to the capture of the 
four persons taken from on board the Trent, I stated to you that it thus ap- 
peared that certain individuals had been forcibly taken from on board a British 
vessel, the ship of a neutral power, while such vessel was pursuing a lawful 
and innocent voyage — an act of violence which was an affront to the British 
flag and a violation of international law. I concluded by directing you, in case 
the reparation which her Majesty's government expected to receive should not 
be offered by Mr. Seward, to propose to that minister to make such redress as 
alone would satisfy the British nation, namely : first, the liberation of the four 
gentlemen taken from on board the Trent, and their delivery to your lordshh> 
in order that they might again be placed under British protection ; and, secondly, 
a suitable apology for the aggression which had been committed. 

I received, yesterday, your lordship's despatch of the 27th ultimo, enclosing 
a note to you from Mr. Seward, which is, in substance, the answer to my de- 
spatch of the 30 th of November. 

Proceeding at once to the main points in discussion between us, her Majesty's 
government have carefully examined how far Mr. Seward's note and the con- 
duct it announces comply substantially with the two proposals I have recited. 

With regard to the first, viz: the liberation of the prisoners with a view to> 
their being again placed under British protection, I find that the note concludes : 
by stating that the prisoners will be cheerfully liberated, and by calling upon 
your lordship to indicate a time and place for receiving them. 



246 

No condition of any kind is coupled with. the liberation of the prisoners. 

With regard to the suitable apology which the British government had a 
right to expect, I find that the government of the United States distinctly and 
unequivocally declares that no directions had been given to Captain Wilkes or 
to any other naval officer to arrest the four persons named, or any of them, on 
the Trent or on any other British vessel, or any other neutral vessel, at the 
place where it occurred, or elsewhere. 

I find, further, that the Secretary of State expressly forbears to justify the 
particular act of which her Majesty's government complained. If the United 
States government had alleged that although Captain Wilkes had no previous 
instruction for that purpose, he was right in capturing the persons of the four 
prisoners and in removing them from the Trent on board his own vessel to 
be afterwards carried into a port of the United States, the government which 
had thus sanctioned the proceeding of Captain Wilkes would have become re- 
sponsible for the original violence and insult of the act. But Mr. Seward 
contents himself with stating that what has .happened has been simply an inad- 
vertency consisting in a departure by a naval officer, free from any wrongful 
motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and probably by the several parties 
concerned either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown. The Secretary 
of State goes on to affirm that for this error the British government has a right 
to expect the same reparation which the United States, as an independent 
state, should expect from Great Britain or from any other friendly nation in a 
similar case. 

Her Majesty's government having carefully taken into their consideration the 
liberation of the prisoners, the delivery of them into your hands, and the ex- 
planation to which I have just referred, have arrived at the conclusion that they 
constitute the reparation which her Majesty and the British nation had a right 
to expect. 

It gives her Majesty's government great satisfaction to be enabled to arrive 
at a conclusion favorable to the maintenance of the most friendly relations be- 
tween the two nations. I need not discuss the modifications in my statement 
of facts which Mr. Seward says he has derived from the reports of officers of 
his government. 

I cannot conclude, however, without adverting shortly to the discussions 
which Mr. Seward has raised upon points not prominently brought into question 
in my despatch of the 30th of November. I there objected, on the part of her 
Majesty's government, to that which Captain Wilkes had done. Mr. Seward, 
in his answer, points out what he conceives Captain Wilkes might have done 
without violating the law of nations. It is not necessary that I should here 
discuss in detail the five questions ably argued by the Secretary of State. But 
it is necessary that I should say that her Majesty's government differs from 
Mr. Seward in some of the conclusions at which he has arrived, and it may 
lead to a better understanding between the two nations on several points of 
international law which may, during the present contest or at some future time, 
ibe brought into question, that I should state to you for communication to the 
Secretary of State wherein those differences consist. I hope to do so in a few 
days. In the meantime it will be desirable that the commanders of the United 
States cruisers should be instructed not to repeat acts for which the British 
government will have to ask redress, and which the United States govern- 
ment cannot undertake to justify. You will read and give a copy of this de- 
spatch to the Secretary of State. 

I am, &c, RUSSELL. 

Lord Lyons, fyc., fyc., fyc. 



247 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department op State, 
Washington, January 13, 1862. 

My Lord : You have kindly left with me a copy of an instruction which you 
had received from Earl Russell, dated on the 22d of November last. 

I have great pleasure in stating to you, for the information of his lordship, 
that the President frankly and unhesitatingly accepts the explanations given by 
Earl Russell of what was the meaning of the British government in the views 
which, at their instance, you had heretofore submitted to me concerning the 
right of the President to suspend the habeas corpus, in time of insurrection, 
without waiting for direct authority from Congress. 

I have to regret, however, that while the misapprehension which has existed 
upon this one point is thus generously removed by Earl Russell, he deems it 
necessary to persist in the opinion that the President's proceeding, under a sus- 
pension of the habeas corpus, in the case of William Patrick was wanton and 
capricious, and that it had not been rendered necessary by the exigencies of the 
civil war. As government must proceed always upon information, and often 
with great promptness and energy, it could hardly be possible to avoid the com- 
mission of occasional errors in the exercise of precautionary power to repress 
insurrection, manifesting itself more or less formidably in every State of the 
American Union. I cannot but think that a prompt correction of the error in 
such a case, (such a correction as was made in the case of Mr. Patrick,) is all 
that could reasonably be required by persons willing to deliberate carefully, and 
anxious to interpret the action of the government with candor and impartiality, 
as I am sure Earl Russell is. I cheerfully consent to leave Earl Russell's pro- 
test on the record, where it will lie side by side with the decisions of this govern- 
ment, which show that, during a civil war now of nine months' duration, no com- 
plaint of any kind has been denied a hearing ; not one person has been pressed 
into the land or naval service ; not one disloyal citizen or resident, however 
guilty of treason or conspiracy, has forfeited his life, except in battle ; not one 
has been detained a day in confinement who could and would give reasonable 
pledges of his forbearance from evil designs, nor, indeed, has one person who 
could or would give no such pledges been detained a day beyond the period 
when the danger which he was engaged in producing had safely passed away. 
Happily, it is not the judgments of even great and good men like Earl Russell, 
pronounced in the excitement of the hour, and possibly subject to the influences 
of disturbing events, which determine the characters of states. From such 
judgments we cheerfully appeal to that of history, confident that it records no 
instance in which any government or people has practiced moderation in civil 
war equal to that which, thus far, has distinguished this government and the 
American people. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your lordship the assurance of 
my high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c, &c, dec. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 

Washington, January 14, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note, which you were 
so good as to address to me yesterday, on the subject of the despatch from Earl 
Russell to me, relative to the arrests of British subjects, of which I delivered a 



248 

copy to you three days ago. I will to-day forward to Lord Russell a copy of 
the communication which you have thus heen so good as to make to me. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, 
humble servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, &c, &c, &c. 



Earl Russell to Lord Lyons. 



Foreign Office, January 23, 1862. 

My Lord : I mentioned in my despatch of the 10th instant that her Majesty's 
government differed from Mr. Seward in some of the conclusions at which he 
had arrived, and that I should state to you, on a future occasion, wherein these 
differences consisted. I now proceed to do so. It is necessary to observe that 
I propose to discuss the questions involved in this correspondence solely on the 
principles of international law. Mr. Seward himself, speaking of the capture 
of the four gentlemen taken from on board the Trent, says : "The question be- 
fore us is, whether this proceeding was authorized by, and conducted according 
to, the law of nations." This is, in fact, the nature of the question which has 
been, but happily is no longer, at issue. It concerned the respective rights of 
belligerents and of neutrals. We must, therefore, discard entirely from our 
minds the allegation that the captured persons were rebels, and we must con- 
sider them only as enemies of the United States at war with its government, for 
that is the ground on which Mr. Seward ultimately places the discussion. It 
is the only ground upon which foreign governments can treat it. 

The first inquiry that arises, therefore, is, as Mr. Seward states it, " Were 
the persons named and their supposed despatches contraband of war?" Upon 
this question her Majesty's government differ entirely from Mr. Seward. The 
general right and duty of a neutral power to maintain its own communications 
and friendly relations with both belligerents cannot be disputed. 

"A neutral nation," says Vattel,* "continues, with the two parties at war, in 
the several relations nature has placed between nations. It is ready to perform 
towards both of them all the duties of humanity, reciprocally due from nation 
to nation." In the performance of these duties, on both sides, the neutral na- 
tion has itself a most direct and material interest, especially when it has nu- 
merous citizens resident in the territories of both belligerents, and when its 
citizens, resident both there and at home, have property of great value in the 
territories of the belligerents which may be exposed to danger from acts of 
confiscation and violence, if the protection of their own government should be 
withheld. This is the case with respect to British subjects during the present 
civil war in North America. 

Acting upon these principles, Sir William Scott, in the case of the Caroline, t 
during the war between Great Britain and France, decided that the carrying of 
despatches from the French ambassador resident in the United States to the 
government of France by an United States merchant ship was no violation of 
the neutrality of the United States in the war between Great Britain and France, 
and that such despatches could not be treated as contraband of Avar. " The 
neutral country," he said, "has a right to preserve its relations with the enemy, 
and you are not at liberty to conclude that any communication between them 

• Vattel, book iii, cap. 7, 8. 118. 

f Caroline, (Chr. Rob., 401;) cited and approved by Wbeaton, ("Elements," part iv, 
cap. 3, sec. 22.) 



249 

can partake, in any degree, of the nature of hostility against you. The enemy 
may have his hostile projects to be attempted with the neutral state, hut your 
reliance is on the integrity of that neutral state, that it will not favor nor parti- 
cipate in such designs, but, as far as its own councils and actions are concerned, 
will oppose them. And if there should be private reasons to suppose that this 
confidence in the good faith of the neutral state has a doubtful foundation, that 
is matter for the caution of the government, to be counteracted by just measures 
of preventive policy ; but it is no ground on which this court can pronounce 
that the neutral carrier has violated his duty by bearing despatches, which, as 
far as he can know, may be presumed to be of an innocent nature, and in the 
maintenance of a pacific connexion." 

And he continues, shortly afterwards : 

" It is to be considered, also, with regard to this question, what may be due 
to the convenience of the neutral state, for its interests may require that the 
intercourse of correspondence with the enemy's country should not be alto- 
gether interdicted. It might be thought to amount almost to a declaration that 
an ambassador from the enemy shall not reside in the neutral state, if he is 
declared to be debarred from the only means of communicating with his own ; 
for to what useful purpose can he reside there without the opportunities of 
such a communication 1 It is too much to say that all the business of the two 
states shall be transacted by the minister of the neutral state resident in the 
enemy's country. The practice of nations has allowed to neutral states the 
privilege of receiving ministers from the belligerent states, and the use and con- 
venience of an immediate negotiation with them." 

That these principles must necessarily extend to every kind of diplomatic 
communication between government and government, whether by sending or 
receiving ambassadors or commissioners personally, or by sending or receiving 
despatches from or to such ambassadors or commissioners, or from or to the 
respective governments, is too plain to need argument ; and it seems no less 
clear that such communications must be as legitimate and innocent in their first 
commencement as afterwards, and that the rule cannot be restricted to the case 
in which diplomatic relations are already formally established by the residence 
of an accredited minister of the belligerent power in the neutral country. It is 
the neutrality of the one party to the communications, and not either the mode 
of the communication or the time when it first takes place, which furnishes the 
test of the true application of the principle. 

The only distinction arising out of the peculiar circumstances of a civil war, 
and of the non-recognition of the independence of the de facto government of 
one of the belligerents, either by the other belligerent or by the neutral power, 
is this : that " for the purpose of avoiding the difficulties which might arise 
from a formal and positive solution of these questions diplomatic agents are 
frequently substituted, who are clothed with the powers and enjoy the immuni- 
ties of ministers, though they are not invested with the representative character, 
nor entitled to diplomatic honors."* Upon this footing Messrs. Mason and 
Slidell, who are expressly stated by Mr. Seward to have been sent as pretended 
ministers plenipotentiary from the southern States to the courts of St. James 
and of Paris, must have been sent, and would have been, if at all, received ; 
and the reception of these gentlemen upon this footing could not have been 
justly regarded, according to the law of nations, as a hostile or unfriendly act 
towards the United States. Nor, indeed, is it clear that these gentlemen would 
have been clothed with any powers, or have enjoyed any immunities beyond 
those accorded to diplomatic agents not officially recognized. 

It appears to her Majesty's government to be a necessary and certain deduc- 

• Wheaton's "Elements," part iii, chttp. 1, sec. 5. 



250 

tion from these principles that the conveyance of puhlic agents of this charac- 
ter from Havana to St. Thomas, on their way to Great Britain and France, and 
of their credentials or despatches (if any) on hoard the Trent, was not and 
could not he a violation of the duties of neutrality on the part of that vessel ; 
and, both for that reason and, also, because the destination of these pei-sons and 
of their despatches was bona fide neutral, it is, in the judgment of her Majesty's 
government, clear and certain that they were not contraband. 

The doctrine of contraband has its whole foundation and origin in the princi- 
ple which is nowhere more accurately explained than in the following passage 
of Bynkershoek. After stating, in general terms, the duty of impartial neu- 
trality, he adds :' " Et sane id, quod modo dicebam, non tantum ratio docet, 
sed et usus, inter omnes fere gentes receptus. Quamvis enim libera sint cum 
amicorum nostrorum hostibus commercia, user tamen placuit, ne alterutrum his 
rebus juvenilis, quibus bellum contra amicos nostros instruatur et foveatur. 
Non licet igitur alterutri advehere ea, quibus in bello gerendo opus habet ; ut 
sunt tormenta, anna, et quorum pra?cipuus in bello usus, milites. Optimo jure 
tinerdictum est, ne quid eorum hostibus subministremus ; quia his rebus nos ipsi 
quodammodo videremur amicis nostris bellum faceree."* 

The principle of contraband war is here clearly explained, and it is impossi- 
ble that men or despatches which do not come within that principle can in 
this sense be contraband. The penalty of knowingly carrying contraband of 
war is, as Mr. Seward states, nothing less than the confiscation of the ship ; but 
it is impossible that this penalty can be incurred when the neutral has done no 
more than employ means usual among nations for maintaining his own proper 
relations with one of the belligerents. It is of the very essence of the defini- 
tion of contraband that the articles should have a hostile, and not a neutral, 
destination. " Goods," says Lord Stowell,t " going to a neutral port cannot 
come under the description of contraband, all goods going there being equally 
lawful. The rule respecting contrabands," he adds, " as I have always under- 
stood it, is, that articles must be taken in delicto, in the actual prosecution of 
the voyage to an enemy's port." On what just principle can it be contended 
that a hostile destination is less necessary, or a neutral destination more 
noxious, for constituting a contraband character in the case of public agents or 
despatches than in the case of arms and ammunition 1 Mr. Seward seeks to 
support his conclusion on this point by a reference to the well-known dictum of 
Sir William Scott in the case of the Caroline, that " you may stop the ambas- 
sador of your enemy on his passage, "| and to another dictum of the same 
judge in the case of the Orozembo,§ that civil functionaries, " if sent for a pur- 
pose intimately connected with the hostile operations," may fall under the same 
rule with persons whose employment is directly military. 

These quotations are, as it seems to her Majesty's government, irrelevant ; 
the words of Sir W. Scott are in both cases applied by Mr. Seward in a sense 
different from that in which they were used. Sir William Scott does not say 
that an ambassador sent from a belligerent to a neutral state may be stopped as 
contraband while on his passage on board a neutral vessel belonging to that 
or any other neutral state, nor that, if he be not contraband, the other bellig- 
erent would have any right to stop him on such a voyage. 

The sole object which Sir William Scott had in view was to explain the 
extent and limits of the doctrine of the inviolability of ambassadors in virtue 
of that character ; for he says : 

"The limits that are assigned to the operations of war against them, by 
Vattel and other writers upon these subjects, are, that you may exercise your 



<* Bynkershoek, " Qusest. Jur Publ.," lib. i, cap 9. f The "Iraina," 3 chr. Rob., 167 
% The Caroline, 6 chr. Rob., 468. § The Orozembo, 6 chr. Rub., 434 



251 

right of war against them whenever the character of hostility exists. You may- 
stop the ambassador of your enemy on his passage ; but when he has arrived, 
and has taken upon him the functions of his office, and has been admitted in 
his representative character, he becomes a sort of middle man, entitled to pecu- 
liar privileges, as set apart for the protection of the relations of amity and peace, 
in maintaining which all nations are in some degree interested." 

There is certainly nothing in this passage from which an inference can be 
drawn so totally opposed to the general tenor of the whole judgment as that an 
ambassador proceeding to the country to which he is sent, and on board a 
neutral vessel belonging to that country, can be stopped on the ground that the 
conveyance of such an ambassador is a breach of neutrality, which it must be if 
he be contraband of war. Sir William Scott is here expressing not his own 
opinion merely, but the doctrine which he considers to have been laid down by 
writers of authority upon the subject. No writer of authority has ever sug- 
gested that an ambassador proceeding to a neutral state on board one of its 
merchant ships is contraband of war. The only writer named by Sir William 
. Scott is Vattel,* whose words are these : "On peut encore attaquer et arreter 
ses gens," (i. <?., gens de l'ennemi,) partout oil on a la liberte d'exercer des actes 
d'hastilite. Non seulement done on peut justement refuser le passage aux 
ministres qii un ennemi envoye a d'autres souverains; les arrete meme, s'ils 
entreprennent de passer secretement et sans permission dans les lieux dont on 
est maitre." 

And he adds, as an example, the seizure of a French ambassador when pass- 
ing through the dominions of Hanover during war between England and 
France, by the King of England, who was also sovereign of Hanover. 

The rule, therefore, to be collected from these authorities is, ihat you may 
stop an enemy's ambassador in any place of which you are yourself the master, 
or in any other place where you have a right to exercise acts of hostility. 
Your own territory, or ships of your own country, are places of which you are 
yourself the master. The enemy's territory, or the enemy's ships, are places 
in which you have 'a right to exercise acts of hostility. Neutral vessels guilty 
of no violation of the laws of neutrality are places where you have no right to 
exercise acts of hostility. 

It would be an inversion of the doctrine that ambassadors have peculiar 
privileges to argue that they are less protected than other men. The right 
conclusion is, that an ambassador sent to a neutral power is inviolable on the 
high seas, as well as in neutral waters, while under the protection of the neutral 

fla s- 

The other doctrine of Sir William Scott, in the case of the Orozembo, is 
even less pertinent to the present question. That related to the case of a neu- 
tral ship which, upon the effect of the evidence given on the trial, was held by 
the court to have been engaged as an enemy's transport to convey the enemy's 
military officers, and some of his civil officers whose duties were intimately 
connected with military operations, from the enemy's country to one of the 
enemy's colonies which was about to be the theatre of those operations — the 
whole being done under color of a simulated neutral destination. But as long 
as a neutral government, within whose territory no military operations are 
carried on, adheres to its professions of neutrality, the duties of civil officers on 
a mission to that government, and within its territory, cannot possibly be " con- 
nected with" any "military operations" in the sense in which these words were 
used by Sir William Scott, as, indeed, is rendered quite clear by the passages 
already cited from his own judgment in the case of the Caroline. In con- 
nexion with this part of the subject, it is necessary to notice a remarkable pas- 
sage in Mr. Seward's note, in which he says : "I assume, in the present case, 

* Vattel, lib. iv, chap. 7, sec. 85. 



252 

what, as I read British authorities, is regarded by Great Britain herself as true 
maritime law, that t' e circumstance that the Trent was proceeding from a 
neutral port to another neutral port does not modify the right of helligerent 
capture." If, indeed, the immediate and ostensible voyage of the Trent had 
been to a neutral port, but her ultimate and real destination to some port of the 
enemy, her Majesty's government might have been better able to understand 
the reference to British authorities contained in this passage. It is undoubtedly 
the law as laid down by British authorities, that if the real destination of the 
vessel be hostile, (that is, to the enemy, or the enemy's country,) it cannot be 
covered and rendered innocent by a fictitious destination to a neutral port. But 
if the real terminus of the voyage be bonajide in a neutral territory, no Eng- 
lish, nor, indeed, as her Majesty's government believe, any American, authority 
can be found which has ever given countenance to the doctrine that either men 
or despatches can be subject, during such a voyage, and on board such a neutral 
vessel, to belligerent capture as contraband of war. Her Majesty's government 
regard such a doctrine as wholly irreconcilable with the true principles of mari- 
time law, and certainly with those principles as they have been understood in 
the courts of this country, 

It is to be further observed that packets engaged in the postal service, and 
keeping up the regular and periodical communications between the different 
countries of Europe and America, and other parts of the world, though in the 
absence of treaty stipulations they may not be exempted from visit and search 
in time of war, nor from the penalties of any violation of neutrality, if proved 
to have been knowingly committed, are still, when sailing in the ordinary and 
innocent course of their legitimate employment, which consists in the convey- 
ance of mails and passengers, entitled to peculiar favor and protection from all 
governments in whose service they are engaged. To detain, disturb, or inter- 
fere with them, without the very gravest cause, would be an act of a most 
noxious and injurious character, not only to a vast number and variety of indi- 
vidual and private interests, but to the public interests of neuti'al and friendly 
governments. It has been necessary to dwell upon these points in some detail, 
because they involve principles of the highest importance, and because if Mr. 
Seward's arguments were acted upon as sound the most injurious consequences 
might follow. 

For instance, in the present war, according to Mr. Seward's doctrine, any 
packet ship carrying a confederate agent from Dover to Calais, or from Calais 
to Dover, might be captured and carried to New York. In case of a war be- 
tween Austria and Italy, the conveyance of an Italian minister or agent might 
cause the capture of a neutral packet plying between Malta and Marseilles, or 
between Malta and Gibraltar, the condemnation of the ship at Trieste, and the 
confinement of the minister or agent in an Austrian prison. So in the late war 
between Great Britain and France on the one hand, and Russia on the other, a 
Russian minister going from Hamburg to Washington in an American ship 
might have been brought to Portsmouth, the ship might have been condemned, 
and the minister sent to the tower of London. So also a confederate vessel of 
war might capture a Cunard steamer on its way from Halifax to Liverpool, on 
the ground of its carrying despatches from Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. In 
view, therefore, of the erroneous principles asserted by Mr. Seward, and the 
consequences they involve, her Majesty's government think it necessary to 
declare that they would not acquiesce in the capture of any British merchant 
ship in circumstances similar to those of the Trent and that the fact of its 
being brought before a prize court, though it would alter the character, would 
not diminish the gravity of the offence against the law of nations which would 
thereby be committed. 

Having disposed of the question whether the persons named, and their sup- 
posed despatches, were contraband of war, I am relieved from the necessity of 



253 

discussing the other questions raised by Mr. Seward, namely, whether Captain 
Wilkes had lawfully a right to stop and search the Trent for these persons 
and their supposed despatches ; whether that right, assuming that lie possessed 
it, was exercised by him in a lawful and proper manner ; and whether he had a 
right to capture the persons found on board. 

The fifth question put by Mr. Seward, namely, whether Captain Wilkes ex- 
ercised the alleged right of capture in the manner allowed and recognized by 
the law of nations, is resolved' by Mr. Seward himself in the negative. I cannot 
conclude, however, without noticing one very singular passage in Mr. Seward's 
despatch. 

Mr. Seward asserts that " if the safety of this Union required the detention 
of the captured persons it would be the right and duty of this government to 
detain them." He proceeds to say that the waning proportions of the insurrec- 
tion, and the comparative unimportance of the captured persons themselves, 
forbid him from resorting to that defence. Mr. Seward does not here assert any 
right founded on international law, however inconvenient or irritating to neutral 
nations ; he entirely loses sight of the vast difference which exists between the 
exercise of an extreme right and the commission of an unquestionable wrong. 
His frankness compels me to be equally open, and to inform him that Great 
Britain could not have submitted to the perpetration of that wrong, however 
flourishing might have been the insurrection in the south, and however important 
the persons captured might have been. 

Happily all danger of hostile collision on this subject has been avoided. It 
is the earnest hope of her Majesty's government that similar dangers, if they 
should arise, may be averted by peaceful negotiations conducted in the spirit 
which befits the organs of two great nations. 

I request you to read this despatch to Mr. Seward, and give him a copy of it. 
I am, &c, 

RUSSELL. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 



Department op State, 
Washington^ February 6, 1862. 

My Lord : With reference to the permission given to the foreign representa- 
tives to correspond with their consuls in the ports of the insurgent States by 
means of vessels-of-war entering their ports, I have to remark that circum- 
stances have come to the knowledge of this department which render it advisa- 
ble that this permission shall hereafter be restricted to correspondence of the 
consuls of those powers only who, by the regulations of their respective gov- 
ernments, are not allowed to engage in commerce. I will consequently thank 
you to request the commander of any British vessel who may visit the ports 
adverted to to abstain from carrying letters for consuls Avho may be engaged in 
trade. « 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your lordship the expression 
of my high consideration. 

E. W. SEWARD, Acting Secretary. 

Right Hon. Lord Lyons. 



254 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 
Washington, February 13, 1862. 

My Lord: Referring to my note of the 4th of December last, relative to the 
alleged maltreatment of the captain of the schooner Louisa Agnes, I now have 
the honor to enclose to you the copy of a communication of yesterday, addressed 
to this department by the Secretary of the Navy on that subject. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your lordship the assurance of 
my high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Right Hon. Lord Lyons, Sfc., Sfc., fyc. 



Mr. Welles to Mr. Seward. 



Navy Department, February 12, 18G2. 
Sir : In compliance with your request of the 9th of December last, the depart- 
ment wrote for statements from the officers of the United States steamer Sus- 
quehanna respecting the treatment of the captain of the English schooner 
Louisa Agnes, seized for a violation of the blockade. The statements have just 
been received, and are herewith submitted, with a letter of Flag-Officer DuPont, 
dated the 28th ultimo. 

Will you please return them when you shall have no further use for them. 
I have the honor to be, &c, 

GIDEON WELLES. 
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State. 



Flag-Ship Wabash, 
Port Royal Harbor, S. C, January 28, 1862. 

Sir: On the return to this port of the Susquehanna from blockading duty I 
called the attention of Captain Lardner to the subject of the treatment of the 
master and crew of the English schooner Louisa Agnes. 

I have the honor to enclose communications from Captain Lardner, Lieutenant 
Commanding Bankhead, and Lieutenant Weaver. 
Respectfully, your obedient servant, 

S. F. DUPONT, 
Flag-Officer Co?n'g South Atlantic Block. Squadron. 

Hon. Gideon Welles, 

Secretary of the Navy, Washington. 



United States Ship Susquehanna, 

Port Royal, January 24, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of a despatch 
from the Navy Department, of December 11, referring to the treatment of the 
master and crew of the English schooner Louisa Agnes, together with extract 
from Lord Lyons's letter to the Secretary of State, and extract from the affidavit 
of the master, to which my attention is called. 



255 

Captain Chauncey, who commanded this ship at the time, was detached soon 
afterwards. From the senior lieutenant (Bankhead) now in command of the 
Pembina, I enclose a statement of the treatment and condition of the men ; also 
one from Lieutenant Weaver, of this ship. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. L. LARDNER, Captain. 
Flag-Officer S. F. DuPont, 

Coni'g- South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, Port Royal, S. C. 



United States Gunboat Pembina, 

Port Royal, January 25, 1S62. 
Sir : In answer to your request to furnish you with the particulars as to the 
treatment of the captain and two of the crew of the Louisa Agnes while on 
board the Susquehanna, of which ship I was first lieutenant, I have to state 
that the said captain and men, after having been transferred from the Cam- 
bridge, were both messed and berthed. He, the said captain, was recognized 
by several of the crew as having served on board a United States vessel-of-war, 
in the capacity of seaman, at some previous time. His personal appearance 
and want of cleanliness was such that I did not feel satisfied in berthing him 
in the steerage, where I had been in the habit of putting men of his class while 
on board of the Susquehanna. A ration was issued for himself and the two 
men, and a place assigned them forward orlop deck (under a strict charge) for 
their effects. He was treated as well as the crew of the ship, and quite as well, 
as I judged from his manners and appearance, as he had any reason to expect. 
While the said captain and two men were on board of the Susquehanna none 
of them were put in irons, or in any manner deprived of their personal liberty, 
but were treated with all the consideration which men in their situation were 
entitled to. 

Respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. P. BANKHEAD, 

Lieutenant Commanding. 
Captain James L. Lardner, 

Commanding United States Steamer Susquehanna. 



United States Steamer Susquehanna. 

Sir : In reply to your request of this day I have to state that the master of 
the schooner Louisa Agnes was received on board this ship on the 10th day of 
September, 1861. He, Robert Nicholson, master of schooner Louisa Agnes, 
was furnished with bedding and a hammock, and took his meals in one of the 
messes of the crew of this ship, where he was treated a member of said mess. 
The said Nicholson would not have been received in any officer's mess, as his 
personal condition was filthy and ragged in the extreme. 
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. W. WEAVER, 
Lieutenant United States Navy. 
Captain James L. Lardner, 

Commanding United States Steamer Susquehanna, Port Royal, S. C. 

Forwarded respectfully. 

J. L. LARDNER, 

Captain. 



256 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 
Washington, February 21, 1862. 

My Lord : I have submitted, to the President the copy of an instruction 
from Earl Russell which you left with me, and which bears the date of Janu- 
ary 23d. 

In this paper Earl Russell sets forth certain points upon which the British 
government differs from some of the conclusions which I presented to you in 
my note upon the Trent affair, of the 26th of December last. 

It is perceived that these differences do not disturb the conclusion contained 
in that paper upon which the case of the Trent was disposed of by this govern- 
ment. 

The differences stated by Earl Russell involve questions of neutral rights in 
maritime warfare which, though of confessed importance, are not practically pre- 
sented in any case of conflict now existing between the United States and Great 
Britain. It is very desirable, however, that these questions should be settled, if 
possible, by an early understanding between the two governments. Neverthe- 
less, Earl Russell, I think, will agree with me that they relate only to a part of 
the international law of maritime war, while there are other and kindred qties- 
tions equally important and equally likely to arise in the disturbed condition of 
affairs which exists on this continent, and in any conflict which may happen in 
Europe. All such questions, moreover, affect not only these two nations, but 
all the other maritime powers. Earl Russell need not be reminded that the 
necessity which has existed for meliorations of the law of maritime war in regard 
to neutrals has been a subject of debates and even of conventions of such pow- 
ers. The friendly relations which this government holds to such powers require 
that all that it does in this connexion should be done with their full knowledge 
and with an expressed desire for their co-operation. This government has taken 
an active part in seeking to promote such meliorations through such conventions. 
Its views on this subject have undergone no change. It will cheerfully second 
any negotiations to that end which Great Britain, or any other maritime power, 
will inaugurate. If it shall seem preferable, it will itself initiate such proceed- 
ings. Our ministers accredited to such powers will, at an early day, receive full 
instructions to this effect. In the meantime your lordship may assure Earl 
Russell that, while the United States will justly claim as their own the bellig- 
erent rights which the customary practice allows to nations engaged in war, 
according to our present convictions, there is no melioration of the maritime law, 
or of the actual practice of maritime war, that the leading maritime states, 
including Great Britain, shall think desirable, which Avill not be cheerfully 
assented to by the United States, even to the most liberal asylum for persons and 
the extreme point of exemption of private property from confiscation in mari- 
time war. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your lordship the assurance of 
my high consideration. 

WILLIAM II. SEWARD. 

Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c, &c, &c. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 



Washington, February 21, 1862. 
Sir : I will, without any loss of time, communicate to her Majesty's govern- 
ment the note which you have to-day done me the honor to write to me with 



257 

regard to Earl Russell's despatch to me, of the 23d of last month, on certain 
questions of international law connected with the case of the Trent. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, hum- 
ble servant, 



Hon. William H. Seward, & c, &c, &c. 



LYONS. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 



Washington, March 6, 1862. 

Sir : Her Majesty's government have considered with attention the corre- 
spondence which I had the honor to hold with you in the months of October, 
November, and December last, concerning the treatment experienced by the 
crews of two British schooners, the Revere and Louisa Agnes, which had 
been captured on a charge of breach of blockade. 

Her Majesty's government cannot but regard the putting of seamen belonging 
to these vessels in irons, under the circumstances in which, and for the period 
for which, this was avowedly done, as wholly unjustifiable. 

I am, however, instructed to express to you the satisfaction with which her 
Majesty's government have seen that, upon the matters being brought by me 
to your notice, you informed me that an instruction would be addressed by the 
Secretary of the Navy to the flag-officers of the blockading squadrons to use 
irons only when, and so long as, necessary, and in all cases to pursue the utmost 
kindness, consistent with the safety of captures and prizes, towards seamen 
captured in attempting to break the blockade. I am desired to add that her 
Majesty's government trust that this instruction will be so carried into effect as 
to prevent the recurrence of any cases similar to those of the Louisa Agnes 
and the Revere. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, 
humble servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, Sfc., Sfc., Sfc. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 

Washington, March 19, 1862. 

Sir : With reference to the correspondence which I had the honor to hold 
with you in the months of October and November last, respecting the bag of 
despatches taken from Mr. J. P. Crosse, at Baltimore, I beg to inform you that 
her Majesty's government have obtained from her Majesty's acting consul at 
Richmond a description of the bag as it left his hands. That description is as 
follows : 

" The bag in question was of canvas, as usual, and was closed in such a 
manner as to prevent access to its contents without cutting the tape or cord, 
which was sealed through parchment with the seal of this consulate. The 
parchment had the following address on it : ' On her Majesty's service. E. M. 
Archibald, esq., her Britannic Majesty's consul, New York. Consulate of Vir- 
ginia.' " 

Her Majesty's government consider that this seal and address ought to have 
been respected by the United States authorities, and her Majesty's government 
17 



258 

hare consequently instracted me to complain to you of the bag's having been 
opened. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, 
humble servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, §v., §c, Sfc. 



Mr. Seward, to Lord Lyons. 



Department of State, 

Washington, April 5, 1862. 

Mv Lord : Your note of March 19 recalls the subject of a bag, which was 
found, in October last, in the trunk of a person named Cross, in his attempt to 
pass the military lines of the United States. 

On the 23d of that month you informed me that you had been referred by 
General Dix to me, and you therefore asked me for such information concerning 
the transaction as it seemed proper that you should receive. 

I answered, on the 24th of October, substantially as follows : That I had 
received information from General Dix that a bag had been found concealed in 
the trunk of Cross, who was a spy of the insurgents, and who, by his escape, 
avoided arrest ; that I therefore directed General Dix to send the bag to the 
Department of State; that on its arrival here it had a label attached, upon 
which was an address to Mr. Archibald, her Majesty's consul at New York, 
and the words " On her Britannic Majesty's service," but there was nothing to 
authenticate the bag as one having been forwarded by the British vice-consul 
at Richmond ; that this fact, taken in connexion with the circumstances under 
which the bag was brought through the military lines of the United States, 
naturally excited doubts whether the bag contained official correspondence of 
the British authorities ; that I therefore directed that the bag should be opened ; 
that when it was opened it was found to contain not a single communication for 
Mr. Archibald, or for any other officer of the British government on this con- 
tinent ; that it did contain a few apparently official letters, addressed to func- 
tionaries of that government at London ; that these letters were promptly for- 
warded, in the same condition in which they were received, to Mr. Adams, with 
instructions to cause them to be delivered to the persons to whom they were 
addressed, and that the other contents of the bag were and they would be 
retained here ; that I thought it was unnecessary to specify their character, 
further than to state that they were such as no consul or acting consul of a 
foreign government has a right to forward in any way from a place in rebellion 
against the United States. 

In the note of the 19th of March, which is now before me, you state that her 
Majesty's government have obtained from her Majesty's acting consul at Rich- 
mond a description of the bag as it was when it left his hands ; that this 
description is as follows : 

" The bag in question was of canvas, as usual, and was closed in such a 
manner as to prevent access to its contents without cutting the tape or cord, 
which was sealed through parchment with the seal of this consulate. The 
parchment had the following address on it : ' On her Majesty's service. 
E. M. Archibald, esq., her Britannic Majesty's consul, New York. Consulate 
of Virginia.' " 

You add that her Majesty's government consider that this seal and address 
ought to have been respected by the United States authorities, and her Majesty's 



259 

government have, consequently, instructed you to complain of the bag's having 
been opened. 

I have the honor to say, in reply to your lordship's note, that I entirely 
agree with her Majesty's government in the principle that when a bag pur- 
porting to convey despatches on her Majesty's service is found sealed and 
duly authenticated by a consul, that seal and authentication ought to be 
respected by the United States authorities. I add, with pleasure, that in all 
cases where such an occurrence has happened the consular seal and authentica- 
tion have been so respected, and in all cases of that character which shall 
happen hereafter the consular seal and authentication will be respected, and 
the bag or parcel will be left unopened and transmitted to its proper address, 
relying on the good faith of her Majesty's government that it will not suffer 
the consular privileges to be abused to the injury of the United States. 

I cannot, however, admit the fact, implied by your note, that a consular seal 
was violated in the case now under consideration, and for that reason alone I 
cannot admit the justice of your loi-dship's complaint. 

The bag, when it came to this department, had no consular seal or any other 
seal, nor were any traces of a seal observed. There was no signature to authen- 
ticate it as having been put up or despatched by the acting consul at Richmond, 
or any other agent of the British government. It was closed only with a simple 
twine, like an ordinary parcel sent out from a retailer's shop. The label might, 
for aught that it expressed, have been written by any hand, without any au- 
thority whatever. 

I have now taken pains to inquire of the deputy provost marshal at Baltimore, 
the provost marshal, and General Dix, through whose hands it had passed before 
coming to me, and I learn from them that when it came to their hands, respect- 
ively, it bore no seal whatever, and was not supposed by them to have ever 
been sealed. 

I have not been able, by pushing my inquiries beyond this point, to ascertain 
what other persons belonging to the service of the United States had possession 
of or control over the bag before its delivery to the deputy provost marshal at 
Baltimore, and so to ascertain whether it was sealed or authenticated when 
taken from the trunk of the spy in whose possession it was found. The inqui- 
ries will be continued, and the result, when ascertained, will be promptly com- 
municated to your lordship. 

In the meantime you will excuse me for suggesting, first, that I cannot but 
remark the appearance of some reservation on the part of the acting consul at 
Richmond, in withholding the necessary explanations to whom he delivered 
the bag, how it happened to contain objectionable correspondence, and how it 
chanced to fall into the hands of a spy, who fled and abandoned the official 
correspondence when he was detected. 

Secondly, I notice, not without regret, that her Majesty's government do not 
express any disapprobation of the conduct of the consul at Richmond in placing 
objectionable correspondence in a bag of despatches, and covering it, as he 
alleges, with the seal of his consulate. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your lordship the assurance of 
my high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c, &c, &c\ 



Memorandum of conversation. 

Lord Lyons called to-day upon Mr. Seward, and said, as perhaps was not 
extraordinary, the capture of New Orleans, which was expected by Mr. Seward 
to be a relief in the relations between the United States and other countries, on 



260 

the contrary, was at the beginning attended with' new causes of uneasiness. He 
had received complaints from his consul in behalf of British subjects in new Or- 
leans of harsh proceedings by General Butler. He had not had time fully to 
digest them, but he called to see that if the Secretary of State woidd not think 
it worth while to have the military authorities at New Orleans cautioned against 
exercising any doubtful severities which would produce irritation, and aggravate 
what had already happened. Lord Lyons, especially, said that it had been re- 
ported to him that a British subject had been sent to Fort Jackson, which is un- 
derstood to be a very unhealthy place at this season, and he trusted the military 
authorities would be requested not to expose the health of such prisoners to un- 
necessary risks. Mr. Seward replied that he cordially appreciated the value of 
Lord Lyons's suggestions, and that he would submit to the Secretary of War the 
expediency of giving instructions to General Butler of the character suggested, 
and he felt authorized to say at once that they would be adopted. 
Department of State, 

Washington, May 30, 1862. 



Mr. Edicards to Lord Lyons. 



New York, May 30, 1862. 

My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship's 
despatch (No. 47) of the 26th instant, (which was not received by me until the 
2Sth,) concerning a report communicated to your lordship by the governor of 
the Bahama islands, to the effect that the custom-house authorities here had 
taken measures to impede or prevent the shipment of ordinary supplies to Nas- 
sau, and instructing me to ascertain and report to your lordship whether there 
be any foundation for such a report. In reply, I have the honor to inform your 
lordship that the customs authorities at this port, acting, as I am informed, in 
compliance Avith instructions received at different times from the Secretary of 
the Treasury, have upon several occasions thrown serious impediments in the 
way of shipments of coal and ordinary merchandise to Nassau, and in some cases 
where the goods were already embarked and even cleared at the custom-house 
have refused to permit the vessel to go to sea until such goods have been re- 
landed. One of the officials has shown me a copy of an order issued from the 
Treasury Department, dated the 10th of April, in which shipments of coal are 
prohibited to any ports or places north of Cape Saint Roque (the easterly 
point of South America, and west of the fifteenth degree of longitude east,) 
where there is reason to suspect that it may be intended for the use of the so- 
called confederate government or ships. This prohibition, as your lordship will 
perceive, embraces all the British North American colonies, British West Indies, 
Bermuda, and the British possessions upon the north coast of South America. 
I inquired of the officer having the superintendence of the clearance bureau 
whether it was intended that this order should be strictly enforced, and he as- 
sured me that such was the collector's intention. He cited, as a case in point, 
an application which had just been made to him for permission to send a quan- 
tity of coal to Canada, by way of the Hudson river and lakes, which had been 
refused. A British merchant here, largely interested in the trade of the North 
American colonies and West Indies, informs me that he has made repeated ap- 
plications to the custom-house to be allowed to export coal, some of which was 
to be tendered for the use of her Majesty's vessels upon the West Indies station, 
at the same time offering to enter into bonds that it should be landed in foreign 
ports, but that his applications have all been rejected. 

I have the honor to enclose, for your lordship's information, printed slips, cut 



261 

from a daily paper, containing instructions issued by Mr. Secretary Chase to the 
collector of this port. Your lordship will see by the latter that the collector has 
very great discretionary powers lodged with him; these powers, I regret to say, 
have been extensively vised to the annoyance and injury of British trade. In 
one case where a quantity of dry goods, consisting of plain and printed cotton 
fabrics, had been shipped upon a British vessel for Nassau, the shippers Avere 
obliged by the custom-house to reland the wares in question before permission 
for the vessel to proceed to sea could be obtained. In another, a number of 
packages of shoes were prohibited from exportation. In a more recent case, 
where an order had been received from some merchants at Nassau to ship a 
quantity of drugs, consisting of sulphate of quinine, cantharides and acids, only 
a portion of the order was permitted to be exported. At one time strong ex- 
ception was taken by the custom-house officials to the (as they alleged) extra- 
ordinary quantity of flour and provisions shipped here for the British West In- 
dies, but I am not aware that it amounted to actual prohibition. Much incon- 
venience has been, and continues to be, experienced by British merchants here 
from the manner in which the instructions issued by the Treasury Department 
have been enforced; articles of ordinary export being at times prohibited, while 
wares which could only be of service to a belligerent have been allowed to pass 
unquestioned. 

I have, &c, &c, 

P. EDWARDS, Acting Consul. 
Lord Lyons. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 

Washington, June 12, 1862. 

Sir: Representations have been made to her Majesty's government in behalf 
of British subjects, now prisoners of war in this country, who allege that they 
were, when captured by the United States forces, serving against their will in 
the ranks of the enemy. 

Her Majesty's government, have in consequence, directed me to ask of you 
that the cases of any such British subjects, taken prisoners of war, as may have 
been forced against their will into the service of the enemy of the United States, 
may be inquired into fairly and dealt with leniently. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, hum- 
ble servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon. William H. Seward. 



Mr. F. W. Seivard to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 

Washington, June 14, 1S62. 

My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 
12th instant, touching the cases of British subjects, prisoners of war, who may 
have been forced against their will into the service of the enemy of the United 
States, and to inform you that I have invited the attention of the Secretary of 
War to the matter. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your lordship the assurance of 
my high consideration. 

F. W. SEWARD, Acting Secretary. 

Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c, &c, &c. 



262 



Mr. Seicard to Mr. Stuart. 

Department of State, 

Washington, June 20, 1862. 

Sir : As you are doubtless aware, Lord Lyons, a short time since, left at this 
department the copy of a letter of the 30th ultimo, addressed to himself by P. 
Edwards, esq., her Britannic Majesty's acting consul at New York, relative to 
certain restrictions upon exports, especially coal, to Nassau and other British 
possessions, which was referred to the Secretary of the Treasury for information 
on the subject. I now have the honor to enclose to you a transcript of that officer's 
reply. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, sir, the assurance of my 
high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. William Stuart, &c, osc, &c. 



Mr. Chase to Mr. Seward. 



Treasury Department, June 14, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 5th instant, covering 
a letter addressed to Lord Lyons by the acting British consul at New York, 
upon the subject of certain restrictions upon exports, especially coal, to Nassau 
and other British possessions. 

In compliance with your request, I return the communication of the consul, 
and also a copy of the report thereon made to me by the collector of New York, 
to whom this despatch was sent for this purpose. 

The restrictions on coal have been enforced by collectors under my instructions 
of 18th April last, alike upon domestic and foreign shipping clearing to ports 
north of Cape St. Roque, on the eastern coast of South America and west of the 
15th degree of longitude east. 

It will be my pleasure to remove all restrictions to trade when the present 
necessity, which has made them imperative, shall cease. 
The despatch of the acting consul is returned. 
With great respect, 

S. P. CHASE, 
Secretary of the Treasury. 
Hon. W. H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



Custom-House, New York, 

Collector's Office, June 12, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th 
instant, which has just been received, transmitting a copy of a communication 
from the acting British consul residing at New York to Lord Lyons, complain- 
ing of restrictions upon exports to Nassau and other British provinces ; and, in 
reply, have to state that, in the exercise of the discretion devolved upon me, as 
an officer of the government of a sovereign people, I have prohibited the ship- 
ment of coals, and dry goods, and shoes, and quinine, and other drugs, and tin ware, 
and munitions of war, and sundry other articles, to Nassau and the West Indies, 



263 

and other foreign ports, when I had reason to suspect that they were intended, 
by individual enterprise, or the special contracts of British subjects, to directly 
contribute to the welfare of the enemies of the United States. 

In respect to the closing paragraph of the acting consul's letter, in which it 
is stated that " articles of ordinary export [were] at times prohibited, while 
wares which could only be of service to a belligerent have been allowed to pass 
unquestioned," I have to say that we have no data in our possession to refer 
to for these facts. His letter is returned. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, - 

HIRAM BARNEY, Collector. 
Hon. S. P. Chase, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington, June 23, 1862. 

Sir : I have read with care the papers which you left with me at the instance 
of Peter Goolrick, of Fredericksburg, in the State of Virginia. He alleges that 
in June, 1S53, G. P. R. James, then her Britannic Majesty's consul for Virginia, 
appointed him vice-consul for the port of Fredericksburg and district of Tappa- 
hannock, and that he has been continued in that port ever since. He further 
alleges that, on the third day of May last, one James Gemmill, a British subject, 
deposited with him one thousand barrels of flour, and authorized him to sell it 
at ten dollars per barrel, or hold it for a higher price. Mr. Goolrick complains 
that soon after the national forces occupied Fredericksburg their soldiers came 
to his office and demanded his British flag ; that on that occasion he prevailed 
with them to let the flag remain. He alleges, however, that on the 2d of June 
ii stant General Reynolds, then military governor at Fredericksburg, took pos- 
session of the one thousand barrels of flour; that he, Goolrick, protested in 
writing; that a few -days afterwards General Doubleday was appointed military 
governor, and that either he, or some of his officers in his name, with a file of 
soldiers, forced themselves into his office and dwelling; were extremely rude to 
Mr. Goolrick and his wife ; searched his premises and examined papers, and took 
some papers away; that they searched his kitchen, stable, and cow-barn, and 
examined his servants, separate and apart, to ascertain if fire-arms were con-, 
cealed in his premises, but there were none found; that on this occasion they 
carried off his British flag from over his office, and placed a United States flag 
in its place, and placed a sentinel before the door of his dwelling-house, with 
instructions to permit nothing to pass out; that he adds that he has closed his 
office and suspended his business as vice-consul, and that her Majesty's subjects 
in this place require the aid of a British consul. 

Fredericksburg is a comparatively obscure inland river port, is only fifty- 
six miles from Washington, and sixty-six miles from Richmond, and both 
of these places are accessible from Fredericksburg by railroad. It is hardly 
conceivable that a vice-consul should be needful there in ordinary times ; but 
certainly this government could not be expected to guarantee forever con- 
sular privileges in time of war to agents whose consular character is entirely 
unknown to them. It is necessary also for the preservation of a good under- 
standing between the two countries, and it is the right of this government to 
have official notice whenever any British subject, however authorized by 
his own government, sets up such a vice-consulate in any port of the United 
States. Mr. Goolrick's papers, which you left with me, show that he was 
appointed a vice-consul, by her Majesty's consul general for Virginia, at the 



264 

time lie mentions, and that succeeding incumbents of the consular office there 
occasionally corresponded with him as such. But he makes no pretension 
that this government has ever had any notice that he held such a trust. I 
am left to infer by him, and by yourself, as I am also directly informed, 
that he is a citizen of the United States, owing allegiance to this government. 
Mr. Goolrick is represented to me to be a traitorous citizen of the United 
States, and the proceedings against him were taken for that reason. The fact 
that he held a vice-consular authority, even if it was true, would not entitle him 
to appeal to British authority for redress against any proceedings of our gov- 
ernment not affecting the authority of her Majesty's government or the rights 
or interests of British subjects. As soon as my attention was directed to this 
case, I inquired in this department and ascertained not only that no notice of 
his designation or pretension to be vice-consul had ever been received at this 
office, but that, in my absence from the department, the military officer in chief 
command at Fredericksburg had called and inquired for the purpose of ascer- 
taining the truth of his pretensions to such a character, and had been told by 
the chief clerk that the pretence was certainly false, because no communication 
of his having been assigned to such a place had ever been received by this gov- 
ernment. It is manifest that the military authorities acted in the matter com- 
plained of upon the assumption that Mr. Goolrick's representations were untrue, 
fraudulent, and made with treasonable intent on his part against the United 
States. 

It certainly is very questionable whether, under these circumstances, he has 
any claim on his government, or that government has any claim for executive 
interposition in the matter. But the President is not disposed to stand upon 
technicalities, or to refine closely upon consular rights and privileges where the 
interest of governments or subjects of foreign powers here are concerned. Jus- 
tice shall in all such cases be done, and all rights created by treaty or the law 
of nations shall be respected. The British flag in question, if it be true that it 
has been taken from Mr. Goolrick, will be at once returned to his possession. 
He does not report that any archives of the consulate or other official papers 
were taken from him. If any such were taken they will be at once returned to 
him. You may consider the subject and determine whether it is so important to 
the interests of the British government and British subjects that a vice-consulate 
be wanted at Fredericksburg. If you think it is, you may appoint then 
any British subject you may name, or any loyal American citizen. If you 
find it inconvenient to make such an appointment, and think it important that 
Mr. Goolrick act for the present as vice-consul, he will, on my receiving an inti- 
mation to that effect from you, be authorized to act, for the present, if the mili- 
tary authorities shall deem it consistent with the public safety that he be left at 
liberty, and, with the reservation also that, on examining all the facts, this gov- 
ernment, if it find him an improper person, will ask for his removal. A com- 
mission will be appointed by this department to inquire into the whereabouts of 
the one thousand barrels of flour which Mr. Goolrick says were taken from his 
protection. If they shall be found to have been the property of any British 
subject, lawfully held, and not being used or intended to be used for purposes 
treasonable against this government, they will be returned, or, if that is impossi- 
ble, compensation shall be made for them. 

Having incidentally learned that Mr. Goolrick had been arrested and is now 
here on his parole, directions have been given for his release from that obligation 
in order that he may return to Fredericksburg. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, sir, the assurance of my 
high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. William Stuart, 8fc, fyc, <$c. 



265 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 

Department of State, 

Washington, June 24, 1862. 
Sir : I have been informally apprised that Mr. Ooppell, her Britannic Majes- 
ty's acting consul at New Orleans, has deemed it advisable to relinquish his 
official functions in consequence of a letter addressed to him by Major General 
Butler, issued, it is presumed, through some misapprehension. I do not think 
the facts of the case justified General Butler in writing that letter. I will thank 
you, therefore, to request that gentleman to resume his consular character, the 
supposed cause of the abandonment of which is regretted. The Secretary of 
War has been requested to issue proper orders upon the subject to General 
Butler. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your very obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Hon. William Stuart, $c, fyc, fyc. 



Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward. 

Washington, June 25, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 23d 
instant, respecting the position of Mr. Peter Goolrick, as British vice-consul at 
Fredericksburg, and the proceedings of the military authorities there in search- 
ing his premises, in taking forcible possession of his British flag as well as a 
quantity of flour, the property of a British subject, which had been intrusted to 
him, and finally in arresting his person and bringing him to Washington, where 
he has been for several days past a prisoner on parole. 

You are pleased to inform me that Mr. Goolrick's position as British vice- 
consul was entirely unknown to the State Department, and that it might be 
questionable whether, as a citizen of the United States, he has any claim upon 
her Majesty's government, or whether her Majesty's government have any claim 
to interfere on his behalf; but, as you state that you are not disposed to stand 
upon technicalities, and as it was not my intention to raise the question, it is 
unnecessary that I should reply further to that part of your note, unless in- 
structed to do so by her Majesty's government, to whom it will be my duty to 
refer the whole case. With regard to the British flag taken from Mr. Goolrick, 
you state that, if so taken, it will be restored; with regard to the flour seized, 
that a commission will be appointed to inquire into the ownership, and that, if 
the allegation is correct, it will be either restored or paid for, and, with regard 
to his arrest, that directions have been given for his release, in order that he 
may return to Fredericksburg. 

In thanking you for this communication, the only part of it to which I need 
now reply is that to which I have not attended in its proper order, and in 
which you submit to me whether it is of importance to retain Mr. Goolrick or 
any other vice-consul at so small a place as Fredericksburg, at the same time 
expressing your readiness to acknowledge him in that capacity for the present, 
provided it be found consistent with the public safety to leave him at liberty ; 
and if, after examining into the facts, the United States government do not find 
him an improper person. On these points I can only request that if no treason- 
able charges can be proved against Mr. Goolrick, he may be permitted to continue 
in the exercise of his vice-consular functions until I have time to receive in- 
structions upon the subject from her Majesty's government, as I have no power 
on my own responsibility to suspend a consular officer from his functions. 

I think, however, that I may assure you that Earl Russell will be anxious to 



266 

consider the whole subject in the same spirit in which you have yourself treated 
it, and that in the meantime it would not be his lordship's wish that I should 
attempt to shield Mr. Goolrick from the consequences of any crimes or misde- 
meanors which he may have committed, punishable by the laws of the United 
States, should any such be proved against him. 

I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you the assurance of my highest 
consideration. 



Hon. "William H. Seward, fyc., &fc., fyv. 



W. STUART. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington, July 1, 1862. 
Sir : In acknowledging the receipt of Lord Lyons's note of the 12th ultimo, 
touching the cases of British subjects, prisoners of war, who may have been 
forced against their will into the service of the enemy of the United States, he 
was informed by this department that the attention of the Secretary of War had 
been invited to the subject. I now have the honor to enclose to you a copy of 
that officer's reply. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to offer to you, sir, the assurance of my 
high consideration. 

F. W. SEWARD, Acting Secretary. 
Hon. William Stuart, &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Wolcott to Mr. Seward. 



War Department, 

Washington. June 28, 1862. 
Sir : The Secretary of War directs me to say that he has had the honor to 
receive your letter of the 14th instant, enclosing copy of a note addressed by 
Lord Lyons to the State Department, under date of the 12th instant, touching 
the cases of British subjects, prisoners of war in this country, who, when cap- 
tured by the United States forces, were serving against their will in the ranks 
of the rebels, and asking that such cases may be " inquired into fairly and dealt 
with leniently," and to submit to you the following reply : 

The department has no information upon this subject other than that gathered 
from the note of Lord Lyons ; and as that fails to mention the name of any British 
subject supposed to have been captured while serving against his will in the 
ranks of the rebels, it is manifestly out of the power of the department now to 
take any action in the premises. 

It may be well, however, to acquaint Lord Lyons with the fact that appli • 
cations for release and parole, on precisely this ground, are almost daily made 
to the department by citizens of the United States captured from the insurgent 
ranks and held as prisoners of war ; but the department has uniformly declined 
to inquire into these cases, or to deal with them otherwise than with cases in 
which no such ground was urged. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. P. WOLCOTT, 
Assistant Secretary of War. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



267 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 

Department of State, 

Washington, July 5, 1862. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your informal commu- 
nication of the 1st instant, relative to the restrictions imposed by the Secretary 
of the Treasury upon the export of various articles of commerce to Nassau and 
other British ports, and to state that it will be taken into respectful considera- 
tion. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, sir, the assurance of my 
high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Hon. William Stuart, dc, &c, &c. 



t 

y 

Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington, July 12, 1862. 

Sir : In accordance with the suggestion in my note to you of the 23d ultimo, 
this department appointed a commission to proceed to Fredericksburg, in the 
State of Virginia, and inquire as well into the character and past conduct of 
Peter Goolrick, exercising the functions of a British vice-consul at that place, 
and into the facts and circumstances which he had made the subject of a repre- 
sentation to you, as into the ownership of the one thousand barrels of flour, 
claimed in said representation to be the property of a British subject, which, he 
said, were taken from his protection. 

I have the honor to enclose a copy of the report made to this department in 
pursuance of said appointment. 

Upon considering the said report the President is of opinion that the public 
safety and welfare require that Mr. Goolrick should not continue in the office 
of vice-consul of a friendly power for any district or portion of the United 
States. Acts which, in a subject of a foreign state, might be regarded as im- 
prudences, or passed with indifference, cannot, when committed by a citizen of 
the United States, as Mr. Goolrick is, but have a certain pernicious influence 
among his fellow-citizens. 

But, in order that no interest may by possibility suffer, and to avoid even 
the appearance of precipitation, Mr. Goolrick, if you desire, may, under your 
instructions, remain in his place until after you shall have consulted your gov- 
ernment in the matter. 

In regard to the one thousand barrels of flour mentioned in Mr. Goolrick's 
representation to you, you are not understood to present a claim in his name, 
or in the name of any other person for reparation or compensation. If at any 
time hereafter any person entitled to your protection shall present a claim to 
the said flour, and claim remuneration therefor, impartial justice shall, on full 
investigation, be done to him. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. William Stuart, &c, &c, &c. 



268 



Mr. Ruggles to Mr. Seward. 

Department of State, July 3, 1862. 

Sir : On the 25th ultimo I received your instructions of that date to proceed 
to Fredericksburg, in the State of Virginia, and inquire into the character and 
past conduct of Peter Goolrick, who claimed to be a vice-consul of the British 
government, and into the facts and circumstances connected with an alleged 
examination of the premises of the said G-oolrick by our military authorities, 
and an alleged arrest of said Goolrick ; and also in regard .to the ownership of 
one thousand barrels of flour, claimed as the property of one James Gemmill, a 
British subject, and said to have been taken from the possession of the said 
Goolrick by military force. Accompanying said instructions was part of a 
correspondence between you and the British minister, from which it appeared 
that, although the said Goolrick had held some sort of an appointment as 
British vice-consul for several years, which had been recognized by the British 
legation, the government of the United States had never been informed of such 
appointment ; yet that, pending such investigations as might be necessary, the 
said Goolrick was to be allowed to continue ( the exercise of his functions as 
such vice-consul. 

By your direction I had an interview with the British minister, in which I 
informed him of the said instructions, and that I was going to Fredericksburg 
in obedience thereto, and suggested that, if he desired, he might send a person 
on his behalf to participate in such investigations as I might make. He de- 
clined to send any such person with me ; expressed his satisfaction with the 
spirit in which his representations of Mr. Goolrick's complaints had been met, 
and said that he had directed Mr. Goolrick, on resuming his functions at 
Fredericksburg, to abstain from any ostentatious display, and not to make any 
unnecessary exhibition of the British flag, with which direction he said the said 
Goolrick had faithfully promised to comply. 

I went to Fredericksburg on the 30th ultimo to perform the said duty. One 
of the first objects which met my view on reaching the town, was the British 
flag, displayed from Goolrick's house, in disregard of his promise to the British 
minister, to announce to his rebel associates a triumph over the military authori- 
ties who had laid the hand of correction upon him. 

The male population of Fredericksburg is very much diminished by the ab- 
sence, in the rebel army, of nearly all the disloyal portion who are able to bear 
arms, and of those who remain very few were of any use to me in imparting 
information touching the subject of my inquiries. The rebels were sullen and 
silent, and professed to know nothing of the matter. The few Union men to 
be found were dissatisfied with the more ample protection afforded, as they 
alleged, by our military forces to the rebels and their property than to them, 
and distrustful of the inclination or power of the government to protect them 
from rebel wrath, if they should give information. Owing to these causes I 
found but one man, besides the officer who examined Goolrick's premises, who 
could or was willing to give me any important information in the form of an 
affidavit. It was freely said by the three professed Union men, who were all 
I could find among the resident population of the town, that Goolrick was a 
violent and avowed secessionist and rebel, but only one of them would testify 
to any facts in regard to him. 

The affidavit of one man, represented to me to be honest and respectable, 
will be found among the papers, setting forth that the affiant, a resident ot 
Fredericksburg, knows Goolrick, and has known him for six or seven years ; 
that said Goolrick has been, ever since the beginning of the rebellion in 1860, a 
strong, open, undisguised secessionist. Since the commencement of the war 
he has had two cellars under his dwelling-house occupied by the rebel forces 



269 

with gurfs in boxes, tents, swords, and army sugar. This storage on Goolrick's 
premises commenced about a month before the evacuation of the town by the 
rebels, and property was put in and taken out, from time to time, in like man- 
ner as at a commissary's store, till at last they left in a hurry, and were obliged 
to leave a quantity of property. Since the surrender of the town by the 
rebels, and its occupation by the national troops, the property so left has been 
privately removed by the rebels, with the aid of the said Goolrick. That on 
one occasion deponent saw said Goolrick unpacking sugar from hogsheads, and 
repacking it in barrels, and said sugar was afterwards privately removed in the 
night by the rebels ; that this repacking and removal of sugar, and the removal 
of the other property, took place after the occupation by the national forces, 
and that Goolrick did this business stealthily. 

John E. Cook, of Middleburg, Schoharie county, New York, captain of com- 
pany I, 76th regiment New York volunteers, made affidavit that he was provost 
marshal of Fredericksburg for about ten days, ending on or about the 16th of 
June, 1862; that during said period he examined the premises of said Goolrick, 
and there found some property which he judged belonged to the rebel military 
forces, and took the same from the possession of said Goolrick, consisting of 
two navy chests, with papers of William Ware, a paymaster in the navy, and 
two trunks and a chest belonging to officers in the rebel army, with their books, 
papers, and some ammunition. There were also some tents, and some pails, and 
some blankets, and some iron ware, and some army clothing in possession of 
said Goolrick, and that deponent also took a British flag from said Goolrick's 
possession. 

There have been transmitted from the War Department a paper dated Feb- 
ruary 19, 1862, purporting to have been despatched by telegraph from Rich- 
mond to the said Goolrick, in these words : "Nashville has not fallen, nor never 
will. Pillow, Johnson, Floyd, and Buckner are safe. I think I am safe in 
saying this." Which paper purports to have been signed, "A. Gustavus 
White." And a paper in these words: "Confederate States of America, War 
Department, Richmond, March 28, 1862. Permission is granted P. Goolrick 
to visit Fredericksburg, upon honor not to communicate, in writing or verbally, 
for publication, any fact ascertained which, if known to the enemy, might be 
injurious to the Confederate States of America. (Signed) A. C. Goodwin, 
provost marshal." On the back whereof is the following : " I, P. Goolrick, do 
solemnly swear or affirm that I will bear true faith and yield obedience to the 
Confederate States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faith- 
fully against their enemies. (Signed) P. Goolrick. (Dated) Richmond, March 
28, 1862." And a paper purporting to be a copy of a letter from the said 
Goolrick to a person styled Captain R. L. T. Beale, dated Fredericksburg, Sep- 
tember 25, 1861, applying to him for his aid and influence for the writer's son, 
Charles T. Goolrick, who desired a military appointment in the Confederate 
States. Said letter represents the son as a bachelor of law of the University 
of Virginia, and as having been practicing at Fredericksburg for about three 
years, and also as having once represented the Jefferson Society and been editor 
of the University Magazine, and since then made several secession speeches 
well spoken of. It goes on to state that some time since he was a lieutenant of 
infantry, and for several months, up to a few weeks previous to the date of said 
letter, a lieutenant of artillery ; that he was a captain of one of the heavy guns 
for several weeks in the naval batteries on the Potomac, and acted also as drill 
master, and had high recommendations from the officers of the corps to which 
he belonged, and from various regular officers of prominence, among whom 
were Captains Roots, Thorburn and Minor, and Lieutenant Smith, and others 
of the navy, and Dr. Bledsoe, chief of the war bureau ; Major Lacy, &c, of 
the army, and many influential civilians — such as the Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, 
Patrick Henry Aylett, John James Chew, &c. It appealed to the said Beale, 



270 

on account of their long friendship, to write a letter to Hon. S. R. Mallory, 
secretary of the navy, if he knew him, or if not, to R. M. T. Hunter, or any 
other influential person who could help his son toward the place he sought. It 
stated that he stood a very fair chance then for an office in the marine corps, 
but that he would like the letter to be general, so as to apply either to the army 
or navy, as he had letters recommending him to either, and that Colonel Harvey 
vpry kindly offered to join Captain Beale in such a letter. As to himself, the 
writer said, it was hardly necessary to say anything. Captain Beale knew that 
he had always been a State-rights democrat, and was for many years chairman 
of the Democratic Association of Fredericksburg, and also that he had been in 
many local offices — such as mayor, British vice-consul, &c, and more than that 
he should leave him to say. He stated that Mr. Hunter and Captain Minor, 
stationed in Richmond, would introduce his son to the president, &c, and 
kindly offered to use their influence on the spot. 

This testimony constitutes the case against the said Peter Goolrick. It is 
therein shown that he was an early applicant for favor from the so-called con- 
federate government to his family, relying for the success of his application 
upon his and their zeal, and useful services in the rebel cause, and upon his 
favorable standing at home and with the British government, as shown by his 
having held the office of mayor and British vice-consul; that he had travelled 
under the favor and safeguard of the confederate military authorities, and, in 
order thereto, had subscribed the oath of allegiance to their pretended govern- 
ment ; that he was in manifestly confidential correspondence on the subject of 
the rebel fortunes in arms, with one White, at Richmond, more distinguished for 
the virulence of his treason than for his intelligence ; that he had in his posses- 
sion during the first half of June last past, the remnants of important and neces- 
sary stores for the sustenance and use of the rebel army, and that from the 
beginning of the rebellion he hath been an active partisan of its evil interests; 
that since the Outbreak of rebel hostilities he hath furnished storage for the am- 
munition and supplies of their forces, receiving and delivering such supplies to 
suit their convenience, and that since his premises have been within the lines of 
the national troops he hath continued, stealthily, such services, and delivery of 
property and supplies to the rebel forces, thus displaying himself in the char- 
acter, not only of a traitor, but of a spy. 

From which facts it is obvious that the examination of said Goolriek's prem- 
ises, the seizure of property found thereon, and the arrest of his person, were 
justifiable and necessary acts of military precaution, and that his exemption from 
the penalty of a military execution is solely attributable to the leniency with 
which the government of the United States deals with treason; and that his 
restoration to liberty, and the exercise of his functions, at the instance of the 
British minister, proceeds exclusively from the comity and respect with which 
it is the habit of our government to treat every request or suggestion of that 
friendly power. 

But the statements of Goolrick himself are not to be disregarded. It is due to 
him to examine whether there are any material discrepancies between the facts 
as above set forth, and his own assumptions of what was the truth in the prem- 
ises. Moreover, we have no information in relation to one branch of the inquiry, 
viz : the one thousand barrels of flour, except from Goolrick himself. He made 
a statement, which he verified by solemn oath, to the effect that he is a natural- 
ized citizen of the United States, of Irish birth; has resided in Fredericksburg 
forty- five years, and acted as British vice-consul about nine years; that he views 
himself as neutral in the war, neither belonging to the Union party nor the 
confederates, so called; that he has never sworn allegiance to the. Confederate 
States, though there is a certificate to that effect on the back of a pass that was 
given to him, yet no oath was then administered to him ; that he has rendered no 
service to the Confederate States; has restrained many British subjects from 



271 

joining the rebel forces; has never aided, procured, or advised any of liis own 
sons to join the rebel forces ; has three sons in the rebel army — two of them, 
Charles T. Goolrick, a lawyer of Fredericksburg, and Robert E. Goolrick, a 
minor, were forced into the service ; the other, Doctor Peter Goolrick, jr., is 
understood t© be a surgeon in the Wise legion, but when, where, or why he 
joined the service deponent does not know; that he has never received for the 
rebel military forces, any arms, ammunition, commissary stores, or other property 
or supplies, nor had in possession any such property and delivered to them ; and 
he further states that about the third of May last he received an invoice of one 
thousand barrels of flour from James Gemmill, of Richmond, whom he had never 
before seen nor heard of, authenticated by the British consul at Richmond, and 
described as branded " Fredericksburg extra superfine flour," and said to be 
stowed in two warehouses in Fredericksburg owned, respectively, by John B. 
Alexander and Charles S. Scott ; and on the fifth of May said Gemmill took him 
to where the flour was stored, and delivered the flour to him as his agent, before 
witnesses, and gave him a writing instructing him what to do with the flour, 
which was neither to sell nor offer it for sale until August or September next; 
and he further states that afterwards, by order of General J. F. Reynolds, of 
the United States forces, six hundred and thirty-three (633) barrels of the said 
flour were taken from his possession in said warehouses at different times, and 
converted to the use of the United States, and that he has no knowledge where 
the said flour came from, nor who had owned it previously to its acquisition by 
said Gemmill ; and he further says that the confederate army took possession of 
an empty cellar of his and stored property there, and took it away, putting in 
and taking out from time to time ; and when they left, they left some property 
there, principally tents, which facts he reported to the headquarters of the 
United States forces when they took possession, and broke open the lock and 
delivered the property to the United States forces. That there were also three 
trunks and a box placed in his possession — one trunk and a box by Charles T. 
Goolrick, and two trunks by a lady of Fredericksburg, Mrs. Neall — the contents 
whereof he knew nothing, which were taken from him by the military author- 
ities of the United States.' 

The said statement was made voluntarily by said Goolrick, and was averred 
by him to be a full and true statement, without reservation, of all the facts within 
his knowledge touching the subjects whereof I was commissioned to inquire. 

On comparing this statement with the other testimony above set forth, the fol- 
lowing points of difference become prominently manifest : 

He is proved by direct testimony and by unanimous report to be a strong and 
open secessionist and rebel, while he represents himself as neutral. 

He is proved by his known signature, remaining among the papers, to have 
subscribed the oath of allegiance to the pretended government of the rebels, 
while he denies having taken any such oath, on the quibble that no oath was 
administered to him. He is proved to have rendered active, zealous, and effec- 
tive personal service to the rebels, in receiving, repacking, and transferring their 
supplies from within our lines, which he denies. 

He is proved by his own letter, remaining in the War Department, to have 
used great exertion to procure a situation in the rebel service for his son, Charles 
T. Goolrick, while he denies having aided, procured, or advised his entering such 
service, and alleges that he was forced into the same. 

He is proved to have received arms, ammunition, commissary stores, and other 
property and supplies for the rebel military forces, and stored the same and de- 
livered it to them, which he denies ; but at the conclusion of his statement he 
says the "confederate army took possession of an empty cellar of his and stored 
property there," &c; and also says that he reported what property they left to 
our forces, and delivered the same to them — of which report and delivery we 
have no knowledge from our military authorities. 



272 

It is submitted that the most partial view of the said Goolrick's statement, 
which can he deemed admissible, does not in any degree favorably modify the 
conclusions which are inevitable from the whole body of the testimony, that he 
has acted the part of a traitor and a spy. 

In regard to the flour we are wholly confined, as yet, to Goolrick's statement. 

General Reynolds who, it is said, ordered the seizure of the flour, with the 
officers who executed his orders, and his entire command, has been transferred 
to another field of duty, and they are not now accessible for any explanation. 

From Goolrick's statement it appears that on the third of May, which was 
Saturday, a total stranger, representing himself to be one James Gemmill, of 
Richmond, a British subject, brought and delivered to him an invoice of one 
thousand barrels of flour, authenticated with great formality by the British 
consul at Richmond; and that on the fifth of May, which was Monday, said Gem- 
mill took him to the storehouses where the said flour was stored and delivered 
the said flour to him as his agent, before witnesses, together with written in- 
structions what to do with the same, which were neither to sell nor offer it for 
sale till August or September next. That afterwards, by order of General 
Reynolds, six hundred and thirty-three barrels of said flour were taken and 
converted to public use, and that he, Goolrick, did not know where the said flour 
came from, or who had previously owned it. 

The unprecedented character of this transaction justly subjects it to jealous 
scrutiny. It is not usual to surround honest transfers of property, or the crea- 
tion of a bona fide agency, with such elaborate evidences of validity. We have 
no information upon what facts General Reynolds acted. He may have had 
proof that the flour was placed in store by the rebel military authorities, as a 
portion of their regular supply. But if he had only the knowledge furnished by 
Goolrick, and that the same contained in his present statement, that this quantity 
of flour was placed in the hands of a man not accustomed to deal in such property, 
with the observance of unusual formalities, with the unaccountable instructions 
to hold it for several months, and past another harvest, whatever might be 
the state of the market ; that this was done with manifest haste at the moment 
when the national forces were approaching the town, and with laborious effort to 
secure for the flour the protection of the British flag, as British property, when 
it was notorious that all that was requisite to secure for it the most ample safe- 
guards from waste or plunder, was that it should be known as private property, 
and not the property of the pretended government of the rebels; these facts 
would have warranted the seizure of the flour and its appropriation to public 
use as rebel military stores. At any rate, the badges of fraud flaunt so showily 
around the transaction that Goolrick must not deem it a hardship if the govern- 
ment require him to clothe his title in other garments before consenting to make 
him restitution. 

It is submitted that, before admitting this claim, the time of Goolrick's agency, 
at least, should be suffered to expire, and that investigation at the locality should 
again become practicable by the return of the inhabitants, and their resumption 
of the pursuits of peace, and that inquiry should also be extended to Richmond, 
and Mr. James Gemmill be made to appear in person, and show himself an 
actual British subject, and that the said flour was, in good faith, his property, 
lawfully held, and not being used nor intended to be used for purposes treason- 
able against this government. 
Respectfully submitted. 

FRANCIS H. RUGGLES. 
The Secretary of State. 



273 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 

[Informal.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, July 23, 1862. 

Sir : The papers which accompanied your note to this department, of the 1st 
instant, marked "informal," have been taken into deliberate consideration. They 
relate to restrictions on the export from New York to Nassau of articles from 
England by steamers, and particularly to those by the China, British Queen, 
and to the case of the schooner William H. Clear, and to the relanding of drugs 
and surgical instruments shipped by a British firm in New York for Nassau. 

Having referred these papers to the Secretary of the Treasury, explanations 
upon the subject have been received from him, the substance of which will be 
made known to her Majesty's government through Mr. Adams, the United 
States minister at London. It is not to be doubted that these explanations will 
show the necessity of the restrictions referred to for protecting the rights of the 
United States with reference to transit trade through ports within their juris- 
diction. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. William Stuart, &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward. 



Washington, August 1, 1862. 

Sir : Lord Lyons addressed various despatches to Earl Russell, in the month 
of May and in the beginning of June last, relative to the restrictions placed 
upon the export trade of the United States, and more especially upon that from 
New York to the Bahamas, in consequence of the instructions given by the 
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to refuse clearances to vessels 
laden with contraband of war, or other specified articles, as well as to vessels 
which are believed to be, in fact, bound to confederate ports, or which are laden 
with merchandise of whatever description, when there appears to be imminent 
danger of the cargoes coming into the possession of the so-styled confederates. 

I have consequently been instructed to state to you that her Majesty's gov- 
ernment, after considering these despatches, in communication with the law 
advisers of the crown, are of opinion that it is competent for the United States, 
as a belligerent power, to protect itself, within its own ports and territory, by 
refusing clearances to vessels laden with contraband of war or other specified 
articles, as well as to vessels which are believed to be bound to confederate 
ports, and that so long as such precautions are adopted equally and indifferently 
in all cases, without reference to the nationality or origin of any particular 
vessel or goods, they do not afford any just ground of complaint. 

But her Majesty's government are unable to understand how the refusal of 
clearances to vessels laden with ordinary merchandise can be justified upon the 
mere assumption of some " imminent danger of the cargoes coming into the 
possession of the insurgents," unless, indeed, there be reasonable ground for 
alleging and believing that some confederate port is the true destination of such 
vessels or of their cargoes. Under so vague and indefinite a pretext as that of 
" imminent danger of the cargoes coming into the possession of the insurgents," 
any kind and amount of arbitrary restriction upon British trade might be intro- 
duced and practiced. 
18 



274 

With reference to the measures that appear to have been taken by the United 
States government as to the trade with the Bahama islands, her Majesty's gov- 
ernment consider that a distinction ought to be made between shipments of coal 
and other articles ancipitis usus, the export of which may have been prohibited 
as contraband by general orders of the United States government, to any place 
within certain geographical limits, and shipments to the Bahamas, or any other 
part of the British dominions, of provisions and other articles of innocent use, 
not prohibited or made contraband by any such general order. The prohibition 
of the former class of shipments is public and general, and it falls equally upon 
the shipping and commerce of all nations, and may be justified on the ground 
of the exigencies of a belligerent. 

Her Majesty's government cannot, however, so regard the interference of the 
New York custom-house with the ordinary exports to the Bahamas of dry 
goods, plain and printed cotton fabrics, &c, shoes, medical drugs, flour, and 
provisions. Trade between the United States and the Bahamas is regulated 
by the treaty of 1815, between the United States and Great Britain, the stipu- 
lations of that treaty having been extended to the Bahamas in 1830 by the 
mutual acts of both governments. By the proclamation of President Jackson, 
dated the 5th of October, 1830, pursuant to the act of Congress of the 29th 
May, 1830, it was expressly declared to be lawful for British vessels from the 
Bahamas to import into the United States and to export therefrom any articles 
which might be imported or exported in vessels of the United States. This 
engagement is still in force, and any prohibition of or interference with exports of 
ordinary commodities, not contraband of war, from New York to the Bahamas, 
in British vessels, is plainly inconsistent with that engagement. 

Her Majesty's government cannot, therefore, in the absence of any evidence 
that the articles in question were destined for the so-styled Confederate States, 
pass unnoticed the general restriction which had been imposed on their export 
from New York to the. Bahamas, and I have accordingly been instructed to 
address this representation to you upon the subject. 

I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you the assurances of my highest 
consideration. 

W. STUART. 

Hon. William H. Seward, §c, §c, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington, August 18, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 1st 
instant, in which, under the instructions of her Britannic Majesty's government, 
a representation is made to me on the subject of clearances of vessels and 
cargoes from New York to the Bahamas. 

No time was lost in submitting your note to the Secretary of the Treasury, who 
referred it to the collector of the customs at New York for explanation. I now 
have the honor to enclose to you a copy of that officer's report on the subject, 
and to state that as his proceedings therein set forth appear to have been in 
strict conformity with the instructions of the Treasury Department, his conduct 
has accordingly been approved by that department. 

I, however, give you the collector's reply for the better information of your 
government as to the exigencies which have rendered the proceedings com- 
plained of necessary in a crisis of great public danger. The exclusive order 
is applied to the island of Nassau only, because there is no complaint of abuse 
of neutrality laws elsewhere, and not at all invidiously, or because it is a 
British possession. The restriction is a measure adopted for the public safety, 



275 

endangered by insurrection, and not at all as in any sense a measure of trade, 
and I think it justified on the same grounds with the inhibition of certain ex- 
ports referred to by the British government. So soon as the abuses which have 
rendered the order necessary shall have ceased it will be at once rescinded. I 
shall, however, cheerfully bestow a further consideration upon the subject if 
your government shall require. . 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. William Stuart, fyc, 8fc., &&. 



Mr. Chase to Mr. Seward. 

Treasury Department, August 13, 1862. 

Sir : I enclose the report of the collector of New York, made in accordance 
with my directions of the 5th instant, sent to him at your instance, moved by 
a letter from the Hon. Mr. Stuart, acting minister of her Britannic Majesty. 
The action of the collector appears to have been in strict conformity with my 
instructions of the 23d May, 1862, and, of course, receives the approbation of 
this department. 

With great respect, S. P. CHASE, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



Custom-House, New York, 

Collector's Office, August 9, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of 
the 5th instant, enclosing letters and papers from the Hon. Wm. H. Seward, 
Secretary of State, and the Hon. Mr. Stuart, her Britannic Majesty's acting minis- 
ter, relative to the prohibition by me of shipments of goods to, and the clearances 
of vessels for, Nassau, N. P., and other ports in the Bahamas, and have the 
honor to submit the following statement of facts bearing on the subject : Re- 
ferring to your letter dated at the Treasury Department, May 23, 1862, in which 
I am instructed " to refuse clearances to all vessels which, whatever their osten- 
sible destination, are believed by me, on satisfactory grounds, to be intended for 
ports or places in possession or under the control of insurgents against the 
United States, or when there is imminent danger that the goods, wares, or mer- 
chandise of whatever description laden on board such vessel will fall into the 
possession or under the control of such insurgents." I have endeavored to 
exercise a proper discretion in the several cases presented to me, and have the 
honor to present the following in justification of my course. It may not be 
inappropriate here to enumerate some of the leading causes which have led to 
this state of affairs, of which complaint is now made by her Britannic Majesty's 
government, and I would, therefore, call your attention to the significant fact 
that the trade of this port with the British West Indies during the last year 
exceeds by far that of any former period, a comparative statement of the exports 
to that point during the first quarters of the years 1860 and 1862 showing an 
excess in favor of the latter period of four hundred thousand dollars. Extraor- 
dinarily large shipments of goods to Nassau, the principal port in said islands, 
have been made during the last year, of a character entirely different from those 
of former years, and such as were not suited to the wants of its inhabitants. 
Nearly all vessels arriving here from that port were freighted with the produc- 
tions of the rebel States, and no attempt at concealment has been made by any 



276 

of the traders with regard to the place of their origin, or the manner of their 
reaching Nassau. Traders becoming more bold, their vessels were freighted 
here with cargoes suited to the wants of the States in rebellion against the gov- 
ernment, were cleared for Nassau, and in some instances went directly to Brazos, 
on the Rio Grande, in Texas, or, in another case, the British schooner Time, 
owned by H. Adderly & Co., of Nassau, as shown by the letter of our consul 
at that port, dated on the 6th May last, discharged her entire cargo into the 
rebel steamer Cecile, then lying in the harbor of that port, awaiting a favorable 
opportunity to run the blockade at Charleston. The case of the British schooner 
Sophia, which cleared for Nassau about the 20th of June last, is another instance 
of forwarding a cargo direct from this to a rebel port. Cargoes of coal, shipped 
at this port for Nassau, have in like manner reached the same destination. In- 
tercepted correspondence and papers, among which Avere articles of co-partnership 
between members of a firm having a mercantile house in London, under the name 
of Jorss & North, a branch house at Charleston, under the firm of Beach & 
Root, and an agency or depot at Nassau, were found on the person of one of the 
members of said firm in London, then on his way to Nassau with instructions 
how to proceed on his arrival, naming the parties resident there who would be 
most likely to aid him successfully in transhipping his goods in small vessels, 
in case their steamers, then on their way, were unable to run the blockade. It 
was also shown by bills of lading, &c, that about one hundred and forty thou- 
sand dollars worth of goods had been shipped by their house in London in the 
British steamers Memphis and Pacific, in joint account, the proceeds of the sale 
of said goods at Charleston to be used in the purchase of a return cargo of 
cotton. Other letters from merchants at Nassau to their agents here have come 
into our possession, in which were instructions to forward certain goods suited to 
the peculiar trade of the island at that time, and intimating that no trouble was 
experienced in disposing of them at large prices to the agents of the rebels. 
Advices from the New York agent showed that, not being able to ship coal at 
this port for Nassau, he had chartered a British schooner for a port in the British 
provinces of North America for the purpose of taking a cargo to that port for 
the use of those who were interested in and carrying on trade with the rebel 
States. The first-mentioned letters and papers I have the honor to enclose 
herewith; the latter have been restored to their owners. It is a very generally 
acknowledged fact, and fully established by letters from our consul, as well as 
by the marine reports of the Nassau papers, that the port of Nassau has been 
for the last year, and still is, a rendezvous for both armed and unarmed vessels 
sailing under the British flag from ports of England, laden with arms, ammuni- 
tion, and assorted cargoes, their destination, in many instances, as shown by the 
letters and papers referred to above, being Charleston or some other port in the 
so-called Confederate States. The steamer Memphis, recently brought into this 
port as a prize, was reported to me on the 12th June last as then lying at the 
port of Nassau with a valuable cargo, intending to run the blockade; and her 
capture laden with cotton from Charleston, is deemed sufficient evidence that she 
had succeeded in landing her cargo of contraband goods at that port, as intended 
by its owners on her clearance from Liverpool, where it was insured by Messrs. 
Jorss & North, at Lloyd's, at about twenty per cent, premium. The British 
steamer Herald, under the command of Captain Coxetter, late of the rebel priva- 
teer Jeff. Davis, reported from Charleston in the Nassau Guardian of a late date, 
is another instance of utter disregard of neutrality proclaimed by her Majesty's 
government, and at the present date it not unfrequently happens that ten or 
more steamers wearing the British flag are lying at Nassau at one and the same 
time. It is a fact worthy of notice that the trade between this port and Nassau 
is carried on almost exclusively in British vessels belonging at that port, and 
that these consignments are made in most cases to houses known and acknowl- 
edged to be in the interests of the rebels, the members of which take every oppor- 



277 

tunity to show their contempt for the government of the United States, and 
whose warehouses are made the depot for goods awaiting shipment to rebel ports 
on the order and under the direction of rebel agents resident at Nassau, among 
which may be named John B. Lafitte, agent for the house of Trenholm, Prazer 
& Co., of Liverpool and Charleston, and Captain Maffitt, late of the United 
States navy, now special navy agent for the so-called confederate government. 

Her Majesty's government expresses the opinion that a distinction ought to be 
made between shipments of coal and "articles of innocent use," enumerating dry 
goods, cotton fabrics, shoes, medical di'ugs, flour and provisions. While acknowl- 
edging the soundness of the argument that there should be such a distinction, I also 
acknowledge my inability to make the requisite discrimination. For example, the 
rebel steamer Nashville, lying at one of the British West Indies islands, is supplied 
by the British ship Mohawk with coal, by which she is enabled to run the 
blockade, and the articles of "innocent use" we are called upon to supply to the 
Nassau market, to be transferred to her, or some other vessel systematically 
using the British flag to advance secession interests, are sulphate of quinine in 
quantities of one thousand ounces, chloroform by the hundred pounds, surgical 
instruments by the dozen cases, cotton cards by the hundred dozen, and uniforms 
or clothing and shoes for an army. Her Majesty's government labors under a 
serious misapprehension when stating that the authorities of the New York cus- 
tom-house have attempted to interfere with the ordinary and legitimate trade to 
the Bahamas. It is only in cases of extraordinary shipments, or when we have 
had good and sufficient reasons, founded on the statements of merchants here en- 
gaged in the trade, for the belief that they were intended for interdicted ports in 
the southern States, that we have intervened for the protection of the interests of 
our government by prohibition, or by requiring bonds that the goods thus sought 
to be shipped should not be permitted to be sent to ports in the insurgent States 
in aid of the existing rebellion, and in no case has any discrimination been made 
by me in favor of American vessels or American citizens over those of any 
other nationality. 

Your instructions relative to our action in future cases arising out of this 
question, and your request that we shall furnish the Treasury Department with 
a statement setting forth our reasons for refusing clearances without the usual 
bond for goods not deemed contraband of war to any British port, will receive 
due attention. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

HIRAM BARNEY, Collector, 

Hon. S. P. Chase, 

Secretary of the Treasury 



No. 1.] 30 Great Winchester Street, 

March 21, 1862, 

Gentlemen: I will take your freight — say 290 tons, the whole not to 
weigh more than 130 tons, more or less — at the rate of 6613, with customary 
primage. To deliver the same cargo, with all possible despatch, at Charleston 
or some other confederate port. 

Yours, obediently, 

JO. LAWSON. 
Messrs. Jorss & North, Leeds. 

Supercargo to be furnished with a first class passage, free of charge. 

J. L. 

P. S. — Payment of freight and insurance to be paid by bill of four months 
drawn on Jorss & Worth. 

J. L. 



278 

No. 2.J 27 Leadenhall Street, London, 

March 21, 1862. 
Gentlemen : In consideration of your undertaking to ship by my vessel 
(the Pacific) 250 tons or more of freight by Tuesday next, if possible, the 25th 
instant, I hereby agree to effect insurance to the extent of ^625, 000, and more, 
if possible, at the best current rate at Lloyd's. 

I am, gentlemen, yours, faithfully, 

A. T. CLARK. 
Messrs. Jorss & North, Leeds. 

Underwriter's name shall be such as may be satisfactory to insured. 

A. T. C. 



No. 3.J 27 Leadenhall Street, London, 

April 8, 1862. 

Dear Sir : I acknowledge to have received bills of lading from you to a 
port in the Confederate States, which I undertake to get insured and returned 
to you, leaving one copy on board with your brother. 
Yours, faithfully, 

A. T. CLARK. 
Mr. F. North. 



No. 4.] London, April 8, 1862. 

Received from Messrs. Jorss & North, of Leeds, their acceptances, at four 
months from the 5th instant, for the sum of 662,655, which, with 6fil,000 in bills 
drawn by Mr. Huxley & Co., to be handed over to me as per order of Mr. 
North, makes the total amount of freight account per Pacific c£3, 655 15s. 3d 

A. T. CLARK & CO., 

Broker for Pacific. 



No. 5.J Pacific, Falmouth, April 14, 1862 — 3 p>- m- 

My Dear Sir : Clark has dodged me and avoided signing — i. e., indorsing 
the bills of lading for a confederate port. He has never once alluded to the 
subject, and 1 confess I am astounded at his temerity. He obtained the bills 
from Mr. North under a threat, and then deceived him by promising through 
bills of lading. I confess that I feared this, as I told you and Mr. Barkley at 
the time; but I did not think be would dare to leave England without giving 
said bills, signed by some one. You must at once apply to Clark for the 
promised through bills of lading which Mr. North told me he had promised by 
letter from Clark. I will try to carry everything out properly, but fear I have 
much to contend with. Mr. North and several othei*s will aid me here. 
Adieu, 

JO. LAWSON. 



Remarks. — On Friday, March 21, 1862, at about 2 p. m., the agreement No. 
1 was written and signed by Lawson, whereupon he, North, and myself called 
upon Clark, to whom L. submitted the contract. After carefully perusing the 
same, Clark objected to the time of payment being four months, saying he had 
instructed L. to accept three months' bills of Jorss & North. He, however, 
consented to the terms, and wrote out the insurance agreement No. 2 at about 4 
p. m., the shipment by the Pacific being conditioned, viz : that Clark should be 
able to effect the required amount of insurance and on the four months' bills. 



279 

This, he stated, could be easily done at from 17 to 20 G. per cent., possibly 
less; and thereby obtained the freight. Query : By the above, does not Clark 
indorse, approve, and confirm the contract of Lawson's, and is he not as much 
bound thereby to deliver the goods in the confederacy as if he himself had 
signed the contract or given a through set of bills of lading ? If this be not 
sufficient, is he not then committed, by receiving the acceptances of Jorss & 
North for d£3,655 — being at the rate of d£13 per ton, same as stipulated by L., 
and the current rate charged for a confederate port 1 If bound by this con- 
tract, then he must carry the goods through with all possible despatch, or he 
becomes liable for damages, and upon a suit in the south his ship can be tied up 
till the claim is satisfied. If the acceptances of Jorss & North are in his pos- 
session at maturity, payment can be resisted, either by want of consideration or 
non-fulfilment of contract. The promise in letter No. 3 induced Mr. North to 
give the acceptances which are acknowledged in No. 4, but as this promise was 
not performed, (vide Lawson's letter, No. 5,) can he not, under a charge of 
" false pretence," be restrained from using the papers ? The greater part are 
in his possession. 

J. N. BEACH. 



My Dear Jorss: I have sent all the papers in re Clark to North, and here- 
with I hand you copies of the papers you may need. I would advise you, while 
on board ship, to make exact copies of what I have here written, so that (if 
necessary) you may send them to Root immediately upon your arrival at Nassau. 
Clark has called to say that he expects to get the steam yacht; and if so, he, 
Scott, and some others will go over in her in some^/owr or Jive days, and he will 
want you to go too ; but I think your own plan much better. If he signs the 
agreement we have prepared, and gives us the other undertakings, he can take 
the ship across at once, and it is not material whether you are there or not. If 
he does not effect this arrangement, he probably will not wish to run, or, at least, 
hefore you arrive out. I think, if he starts at the appointed time, you will reach 
there first, via New York ; and should he not start at all, but send out an agent 
by the Liverpool steamer, where will you be then, if you wait for him ? My 
advice is, carry out your own plan, independent of him. Your duties at Nas- 
sau will be very light and pleasant if Clark obtains the insurance and takes the 
ship over to a confederate port ; but if you leave on Saturday, and the arrange- 
ment is not perfected before you go, your course will be one of some anxiety. 
With all due deference to your good judgment, I submit the following for your 
consideration : 

Being advised by Mr. North you will, of course, know your legal rights and 
the better way of securing them. If not in conflict with his views, I would 
first call upon Messrs. Henry Adderley & Co., John B. Lafitte, esq., (agents of 
Fraser, T. & Co.,) and confer freely with them. You will then have all the local 
information you need to act wisely. I would then insist upon the ship comple- 
ting her voyage at once, and, if not done, I will duly protect and then remove 
the whole or part of the goods, and, sending them over by different vessels, lessen 
the risk of capture. This plan seems advisable from this point ; but possibly, 
if on the spot, it would be declined. I can only hope the difficulties may be re- 
moved by Clark's agreement to-morrow, yet I have some doubts about it. I 
wish you would write to Root fully and freely as soon as you can ; send him 
samples ; also full descriptions of both the cargoes, and he will be the better 
able to effect sales. To-morrow I will write to you at the "Adelpki Hotel." 
Bache will do d£3,000 on freight and c£5,000 on merchandise. How will you do 
about paying him the premium? I wish to send F., T. & Co. their policy for 
d£5,000, also the Galbraith policy as per my agreement. If Clark does not set- 



280 

tie with ns, I presume Mr. North -will commence proceedings as soon as yon 
leave. I do not think of anything else at present. If you wish to Avrite to me, 
address to Davison's care ; and if not here, he will forward it to me. I should 
not advise sending the money to Bache direct, but by draft or some other way.. 
You have, my dear Jorss, my sincere wishes for a pleasant, safe, and prosperous 
voyage, a successful issue from these difficulties at Nassau, and a speedy return 
to your dear wife and friends. Should you visit the south, I need only commend 
you to Root's care ; in him you will find a friend and brother. God bless you, 
and keep you in health and prosperity is the wish of 
Your attached friend, 

BEACH. 



This agreement, made this thirteenth day of March, one thousand eight hun- 
dred and sixty-two, between Messieurs Frederick Henry Jorss and Frederick 
North, of the one part, and John N. Beach, of London, in England, on behalf of 
himself severally, as well as on behalf of his partner, Sydney Root, who carry 
on business together, copartnerships under the firm of Beach & Root, in the 
city of Charleston, in the Confederate States of America, as merchants of the 
other part, whereby the said Jorss & North and Beach & Root, for the con- 
siderations herein set forth, contract and agree with each other, as hereinafter 
appears : 

1. That the said Beach & Root shall, on the signing of this agreement, pay 
to the said Jorss & North the sum of three thousand pounds, either in cash 
or by acceptances, which acceptances are to be approved by the said Jorss & 
North. 

2. That on receiving the said sum of three thousand pounds, as hereinbefore 
stated, the said Jorss & North shall, with all practicable expedition, engage a 
ship and freight the same with such goods as the said John N. Beach shall di- 
rect, and which ship shall be chartered to convey such goods to the said city of 
Charleston. 

3. That the said Jorss & North shall insure the said ship and cargo for the 
city of Charleston, or any other port of the said southern States of America, 
in such an amount as the said Jorss & North may think proper ; the said 
Jorss & North advancing the insurance premium, freightage money for goods, 
and all other expenses in and about the execution of this agreement, and all 
matters herein contained or relating hereto. 

4. That the said Jorss & North shall appoint such party or parties as they 
may think proper, to take charge of the said goods and act as supercargo thereof, 
and that all such goods shall remain the property of the said Jorss & North 
till they shall have been reimbursed all money out of pocket in relation to this 
agreement and the matters herein contained. Such amount to be fixed by the 
receipts in their possession of moneys paid by them on account hereof, or ac- 
counts claimed from them and admitted by them to be due in respect hereof 
and the matters herein contained. 

5. That the said John N. Beach hereby undertakes, on behalf of himself and 
his said partner, that within one fortnight after his said partner, Sydney Root, . 
shall have been apprised of the arrival of the said ship in any southern port as 
aforesaid, that the said Sydney Root, acting on behalf of himself and the said 
John N. Beach, shall remit to the said Jorss & North, in such manner as shall 
be satisfactory to William North the younger, of Leeds, who will go out with 
such ship as supercargo of the goods, such an amount as will cover the said 
Jorss & North all outlays by them, of whatever kind, in relation to the exe- 
cution and carrying out of this agreement, and which amount shall be conclu- 
sively fixed at such total sum as the said William North the younger shall 



281 

produce invoices and accounts for, whether paid or owing by the said Jorss & 
North, bearing the signature of the said Jorss & North. Should the said 
Sydney Root neglect to remit such amount to Jorss & North, as before stated, 
within the said fourteen days, the said William North the younger shall be at 
liberty to dispose of the cargo as he thinks fit ; the proceeds of which disposi- 
tion shall be tor the benefit or loss of both the said parties hereto, in the same 
manner as though the said Sydney Root had complied with and performed that 
condition. 

6. That after the arrival of the ship and payment of the invoices and ac- 
counts thereof and expenses relating to this agreement, as lastly before ex- 
pressed, the said Sydney Root and William North the younger shall sell 
jointly the cargo as equal partners ; the said William North the younger acting 
for and on behalf of and as the attorney of the said Jorss & North. 

7. That in case of capture or loss of the said ship and cargo, or other pre- 
vention of their reaching their destination, as before expressed, the said Jorss 
& North shall, out of the insurance to be effected, as before expressed, and 
which insurance it is intended shall be a protection against risks of war as well 
as of the sea, refund to the said Beach & Root, as they or one of them may 
direct, the said sum of three thousand pounds, only retaining for themselves the 
balance of such insurance money, it being intended and hereby agreed that the 
said Beach & Root shall not be interested in, liable for, or entitled to partici- 
pate in such goods until their arrival in a southern port, as hereinbefore 
expressed, or in the port of Nassau or any other intermediate port, as next 
hereinafter mentioned. 

8. That should the said William North the younger find or consider it in his 
absolute discretion advisable to effect sales of the said goods or cargo at an 
intermediate port, the said Beach & Root shall participate in the profits 
thereof as though they were sold in a southern port, according to the terms 
hereinbefore stated ; the said William North the younger, out of the proceeds 
of such sale or sales, retaining for the said Jorss & North all moneys payable 
by them or liabilities of them, fixed in the manner hereinbefore mentioned. 

9. That should fhere be a loss to the said Jorss & North, on the close of 
the execution of this agreement, in the sending out of goods, as hereinbefore 
named, the said Beach & Root shall pay to the said Jorss & North one-half 
of such loss, and which loss shall be taken to be settled between both the said 
parties hereto, at such sum as the said William North the younger shall declare 
to be the difference between the sums paid by or liabilities of the said Jorss and 
North in respect of the matters in this agreement contained, as shall be evidenced 
by the invoices and accounts produced by the ' said Jorss & North, as herein- 
before mentioned, and the account sales of the said goods, comprising the cargo 
of the said ship. 

10. If the said William North the younger and Sydney Root, after the sale 
of the said cargo, and completing of the agreement hereinbefore contained, shall 
think it desirable to reload the ship with cotton for the return journey to 
England, they shall be at liberty to do so in such manner as they shall think 
fit, and the clear profits arising from such cargo of cotton (and which cotton 
shall be paid for equally by the said William North the younger, on behalf of 
the said Jorss & North, and Sydney Root, on behalf of Beach & Root, out 
of the proceeds of the oittward cargo) shall be divided equally between the said 
parties hereto. 

11. That until the final completion hereof, and sale arid realizations of the 
said outward cargo, the said Beach & Root shall have no claim on the said 
Jorss & North for the said sum of three thousand pounds, or any part thereof, 
but which said sum shall be credited and allowed to the said Beach & Root 



282 

in all accounts between the parties hereto, according to the spirit of this agree- 
ment. As witness our hands and seals. 

H. F. JORSS. 

Signed, sealed, and delivered by the within named Henry Frederic Jorss, in 
the presence of — 

William Kappell, 

Merchant, No. 2 Lower Mosley street, Manchester. 
Edward Huter, 

Bookkeeper, No. 2 Lower Mosley street, Manchester. 

JOHN % BEACH. 

Signed, sealed, and delivered by the within named John N. Beach, in the 
presence of — 

William Kappell, 

Merchant, No. 2 Lower Mosley street, Manchester. 
Edward Huter, 

Bookkeeper, No. 2 Lower Mosley street, Manchester. 

FREDERICK NORTH. 

Signed, sealed, and delivered by the within named Frederick North, in 
presence of — 

David Booth, Clerk, Leeds. 
John North, Solicitor, Leeds. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington,. August 20, 1862. 

Sir : In the matter of the seizure in New Orleans of certain sugars made by 
the order of Major General Butler, and claimed by certain Greek, English, and 
other foreign merchants, I have the honor to state that the same, under the 
authority of the President, was investigated by the Hon. Reverdy Johnson during 
his recent mission to New Orleans, and that he has reported to this department 
that the sugars should be returned. This report having been approved by the 
President, directions will be given to the major general and to commanding 
officers of the United States at New Orleans to release the sugars to the 
claimants. A copy of so much of Mr. Johnson's report as relates to the 
transaction is herewith enclosed for your information. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. William Stuart, &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Reverdy Johnson to Mr. Seward. 
[Extract.] 
• Washington, August 19, 1862. 

The sugars seized by order of Major General Butler, and claimed by certain 
Greek, British, and other foreign merchants — 

I. The largest quantity is claimed by Messrs. Covass & Negroponte, Greek 
merchants, residents of New Orleans. 



283 

The fact of their purchase of the sugars is not only fully proved, but was not 
contested. Their right to them, therefore, in the absence of other evidence, 
cannot be questioned. The seizure was made on the ground that the purpose 
of the claimants was, in some way or other, to assist the rebel government. Of 
this, however, there was no proof. The purchase of each parcel was shown to 
have been made in the customary mode, and to have been paid for in the cus- 
tomary mode. The bills drawn on Europe by the claimants, as was their 
uniform practice, placed in the hands of their bill brokers for sale — the price 
only being fixed by the house — were by the brokers sold, proceeds at first 
deposited in bank to their own credit, and the net amount of sales, less com- 
mission, paid to the claimants by the broker's check. 

It does not appear that in this instance, or in any other, the claimants knew 
who were the purchasers of their bill, or with what purpose they were pur- 
chased. The suspicion that there existed, after the rebellion, as was suggested 
to me, "an association of Greek merchants residing in New Orleans, London, 
and Havana, or elsewhere, formed for the purpose of or actually carrying on 
the enterprise of selling foreign exchange for confederate money, with the view 
of transferring abroad the credit of the Confederate States to be converted into 
bullion for the purchase of arms and munitions of war," is wholly without 
support. And as to these claimants there is proof as positive and demonstrative 
as there could be in such a case that the fact was otherwise. They sold their 
bills and invested proceeds, from time to time, in the produce of the country, 
for sale here or shipment abroad. There is not a scintilla of evidence that they 
ever belonged to such an association, if there was one, (of which, however, 
there is no proof,) but, on the contrary, their conduct in negotiating their bills, as 
exhibited in the many depositions annexed, is absolutely inconsistent with such 
a connexion. The seizure by the major general was evidently made under a 
misapprehension. His conduct in this particular, as in those of the $800,000 
and $716,196, is to be referred to the patriotic zeal which governs him, to the 
circumstances encircling his command at the time so well calculated to awaken 
suspicion, and to an ardent desire to punish, to the extent of his supposed power, 
all who had contributed, or were contributing, to the aid of a rebellion the most 
unjustifiable and wicked that insane or bad men were ever engaged in. 

I am, therefore, clearly in the opinion that the sugars should be released. 
They have already lost much in quantity by leakage, and the sooner the return 
is made, the better, I beg to suggest, will it be for the cause of individual justice 
and the honor of the government. 

^ ^ >fc sK >K % 

I have the honor to be, with high regard, your obedient servant, 

REVERDY JOHNSON. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 
» Washington, August 20, 1862. 

Sir: Having informally understood from you that British subjects who had 
merely declared their intention to become citizens of the United States had ex- 
pressed apprehensions that they might be drafted into the militia under the late 
requisition of the War Department, I have the honor to acquaint you, for their 
information, that none but citizens are liable to militia duty in this country, and 
that this department has never regarded an alien who may have merely declared 
his intention to become a citizen as entitled to a passport, and, consequently, 



284 

has always withheld from persons of that character any such certificate of 
citizenship. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. William Stuart, &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. F. W. Setvard to Mr. Stuart. 

Department of State, . 
Washington, September 1, 1862. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 30th 
ultimo, enclosing a copy of Earl Russell's despatch to you of the 2Sth of July 
last, which you read to the Secretary of State on the 16th of last month, and 
to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

F. W. SEWARD, Acting Secretary. 
Hon. Wm. Stuart, &c, &c, &c. 



Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward. 



Washington, September 2, 1862. 

Sir : A complaint having been made by Messrs. Murphy & Twining, of 
Halifax, to Vice-Admiral Sir Alexander Milne, and referred by the latter to her 
Majesty's government, respecting the manner in which United States cruisers 
are exercising their belligerent right of search, I have been instructed to repre- 
sent the matter to the United States government, and to request that an inquiry 
may be instituted relative to the conduct of the. United States officers in the 
cases of the Annette and Dart, mentioned in the letter of Messrs. Murphy & 
Twining, of which I do myself the honor to enclose you a copy herewith. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, 
humble servant, 

WILLIAM STUART. 

Hon. William H. Seward. 



Messrs. Murphy and Twining to Admiral Milne. 

Halifax, N. S„ July 10, 1862. 

Sir : We take the liberty of addressing you, as the naval commanding officer 
on this station, to call your attention to the following circumstances: Our brig- 
antine, the Annette, Curtis, master, of this port, on her late voyage from Ma- 
tanzas to Halifax, with a cargo of sugar, was on the evening of the 20th ultimo, 
coming tbrough the gulf of Florida, lat. 25° 44' N., long. 79° 58', chased by 
a steamer showing United States colors, hailed, ^ordered to heave-to, and boarded 
by an officer of the said steamer, who demanded ship's papers, and after exami- 
nation and defacing them by remarks, allowed Captain Curtis to proceed on his 
voyage, after considerable detention. 

The steamer, by indorsation on the brig's register, was the United States 
steamer Rhode Island. 



285 

These instances of searching our vessels are now becoming so frequent that 
we have thought it advisable to call your attention to the above, with the hope 
that you will take steps to remedy this grievance. Some of these American 
cruisers are not content with ordering our vessels to heave to, to be searched, 
but in some instances (as in the case of the brigantine Dart, Conrad, master,) 
have fired into our vessels. 

The conduct of the boarding officers also beiug particularly offensive. In this 
instance our vessel was detained at an unreasonable hour in a bad position, and 
at some considerable risk to ship and cargo, and might have proved of serious 
loss to us. Trusting that you will take some steps to prevent the recurrence of 
these most annoying, unlawful, and insulting acts of these American cruisers in 
the gulf, 



We remain, &c, &c, 
Sir A. Milne, K. C. B., Sfc, Sfc., &fc. 



MURPHY & TWINING. 



Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward. 



Washington, September 2, 1862. 

Sir : Having forwarded to Earl Russell a copy of the note which you did 
me the honor to address to me on the 23d of July last, respecting the case of 
the Will-o'-the-Wisp, I have been instructed to inform you, with reference to 
the observations therein contained relative to the inconvenience sustained by 
neutrals engaged in honest trade with Matamoras, that when Great Britain was 
at war with Russia her Majesty's government did not enforce the blockade of 
a port near to the Russian frontier in order not to interrupt neutral commerce. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient humble, 
servant, 

W. STUART. 

Hon. William H. Seward, Sfc., $c, fyc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington, September 4, 1862. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 2d 
instant, with the accompanying extract of a letter from Commodore Edmonstone 
to Rear Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker, on the subject of the African slave trade, 
and to inform you in reply that you are entirely correct in supposing that I 
would learn with satisfaction that the present suspension of that obnoxious traffic 
may be ascribed to the measures which have been taken in this country towards 
punishing those engaged in it. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Hon. William Stuart, §c, 8fc., §c. 



286 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 

Department of State, 

Washington, September 5, 1862. 
Sir : I have received the papers remitted to you from Canada, and informally 
communicated by you to this department in my absence. It affords this gov- 
ernment the greatest satisfaction to know that the British authorities in Canada 
are so earnestly and judiciously employed, as these papers show they are, in pre- 
venting and allaying irritation on their side of the frontier. You have rightly 
expected that the civil authorities of the United States on the frontier will be 
cautioned to practice the utmost justice, forbearance, moderation, and courtesy 
towards British subjects in executing the duties relating to American citizens 
confided to them by the War Department. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Hon. Wm. Stuart, fyc, tipc., Sfc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington, September 6, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 2d 
instant, in which you state that you have been instructed to inform me, with 
reference to the observations contained in my note to you of the 23d of July 
last, in the case of the Will-o'-the-Wisp, relative to the inconvenience sustained 
by neutrals engaged in honest trade with Matamoras, that when Great Britain 
was at war with Russia her Majesty's government did not enforce the blockade 
of a port near to the Russian frontier in order not to interrupt neutral commerce. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. Wm. Stuart, 5fc„ Sfc., Sfc. 



Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward. 



Washington, September 6, 1862. 

Sir : The painful nature of the letters which have reached me by this day's 
post from British subjects residing iu the United States l-enders it absolutely 
necessary that I should request you to have the kindness to take prompt and 
energetic measures for their protection. 

I shall proceed to state, as briefly as possible, a few of the cases which have 
been brought to my notice, and which, although I cannot for a moment believe 
that such extravagant threats as those to which allusion is made would be car- 
ried into execution, are sufficient to show that a system of intimidation is being 
established in some places which may lead to most disagreeable results. 

Mr. Christopher Cleburne, a British subject, with a consular certificate of his 
nationality, writes that he was imprisoned at Newport, Kentucky, by the pro- 
vost marshal, for refusing as an alien to report for military duty. His mother, 



287 

writing on the 4th instant, informs me that on that morning the option had been 
tendered to him of falling into the ranks or of being shot. 

Mr. Robert McMillan writes from his place, near Whitewater, in Wisconsin, 
that his son, Andrew McMillan, whilst on his way to fulfil an engagement in 
Canada, was arrested and kept in prison at Cleveland, Ohio, for fifteen days, 
when he Avas induced to enlist by a captain who told him that he must either do 
so or be sent to Columbus and put to hard labor. The young man is at present 
serving in Captain Vale's company, 103d regiment Ohio volunteers, Cleveland, 
and his father reports him to demand his discharge. 

Mr. James Brown, writing from Cincinnati, (197 Vine street,) alleges that 
after examination before the provost marshal, he was assured that as being an 
alien his name would be removed from the military list, but that three soldiers, 
subsequently came to his house, and refusing to pay any attention to his pro- 
testations that he was a British subject," they would have dragged him out had 
he not happened to have a sore arm, on account of which they respited him for 
a few days. They, however, took out by force a British subject who was with 
him, a young man named Andrew Hardie. 

Mr. Alexander Mettwen, another British subject, informs me from Cincinnati, 
that on the 4th instant he had been forced to join a company, and that he wishes 
to be restored to his wife and children, who are in Clay county, Illinois. 

As such proceedings are in direct violation of your own declaration that aliens 
are exempt from military service, I need not represent them to you on any other 
grounds, knowing that you will at once see that reparation is made in each of 
the cases to which I have alluded. 

It is probable, however, that the evil will increase and be extended to other 
places, unless measures are promptly taken to check it in its infancy, and I 
would therefore suggest that a circular from you to the different governors of 
States, as well as to the federal military authorities or provost marshals, defining 
the rights of aliens in the present emergency, might be the means of preventing 
much injustice, intimidation, and hardship. 

Lest you may suppose that in calling your attention to the subject in ques- 
tion I have not sufficiently considered the difficult and exceptional circumstances 
in which this country is unfortunately placed, I shall state, in conclusion, that 
I have no desire that British subjects should be exempted from all the obliga- 
tions ordinarily incident to domicile, such as service in the local police, where 
imposed by the municipal law, or in companies formed exclusively for the main- 
tenance of internal peace and order and for the protection of property. 

But no further military service can be required of them without compelling 
them to violate the Queen's proclamation of neutrality by taking part in the 
war, and I must therefore appeal to you to afford them proper protection against 
any compulsory service beyond that which I have admitted above to be prop- 
erly due from aliens to the locality in which they are domiciled. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, hum- 
ble servant, 



Hon. William H. Seward, fyeJ, fye., fyc. 



W. STUART. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington, September 11, 1862. 
Sir : In a letter to this department of the 29th ultimo General Shepley, the 
military governor of Louisiana, represents that he is doing everything in his 
power towards increasing the exports of cotton from New Orleans. He adds 



288 

that there are now no restrictions of any kind on the part of the military or 
civil authorities of the United States which impede the receipts of cotton at, or 
its shipment from, that port. The obstacles interposed are entirely those of the 
insurgents, and these he would use all proper and loyal means to overcome. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Hon. William Stuart, Sfc, Sfc., 8fc. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department op State, 
Washington, September 11, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 9th 
instant, which relates to the complaint of Francis Carroll. 

I must be permitted to say that, through inadvertence, you seem to me to 
have somewhat misunderstood his case. You assume that his confinement bas 
been directed by the War Department, in order to gratify the revenge of an 
individual with whom he has a quarrel. On the contrary — although I see in 
the letter which was written by Carroll to Mr. Paca provocation to revenge — I 
do not find any evidence in the case that he has given indulgence to that pas- 
sion or to any vindictive sentiment. The letter shows that Carroll is a public 
enemy. Certainly a presumption of good instead of bad motives arises when, in 
an hour of danger, a loyal citizen gives warning against a public enemy. So it 
can hardly be believed, without some evidence, that the military authorities of 
the United States, in deciding to arrest Carroll, sympathized at all with any 
retaliatory feelings on the part of Mr. Paca, even if they were entertained by 
him. It is not perceived how they could have overlooked the complaint. 

The city of Baltimore and the State of Maryland are well known to contain 
a seditious class of persons who are connected with an armed and open insur- 
rection in other States to subvert the government of the United States. These 
seditious persons have once actually raised the standard of civil Avar in Balti- 
more. A large national force has for more than a year been kept up in Mary- 
land to overawe and repress this sedition. 

Francis Carroll was denounced to the military authorities as an active parti- 
san of this class. His letter written to Mr. Paca proves that the denunciation 
was probably just. So far as we know, he has not denied the authenticity of 
the letter, nor given any sign of any change of sentiment, or any assurance of 
amending his course, even if he should be set at liberty. 

Is the government of the United States to be expected to put down treason 
in arms, and yet leave persons at liberty who are capable of spreading sedition, 
and who deliberately write to a loyal citizen that he " is a spy of an alien and 
miscreant government?" Certainly the government could not expect to main- 
tain itself if it allowed such mischievous license to American citizens. Can the 
case be different when the dangerous person is a foreigner living under the pro- 
tection of this government 1 

I can conceive only one ground upon which his release can be ordered, and 
that is that he may be too unimportant and too passionate a person to be heeded 
in his railings against the government. But you will bear in mind that the 
times are critical, and that sedition is easily moved now by evil designing men 
who, in times of peace, might be despised. It would seem to belong to the War 
Department to decide whether Francis Carroll could, in the existing condition 
of military affairs in Maryland, be set at liberty consistently with the public 
.safety. At least before the President could decide to accede to your wishes on 



289 

that subject, it will be proper for hirn to have the opiniun of the Secretary of 
War upon the question, and I shall with pleasure consult him upon the subject. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. Wm. Stuart, dec, dec, dec 



Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward. 



Washington, September 13, 1862. 

Sir : I have been instructed by Earl Russell to communicate to you the 
accompanying copy of the instructions which it is intended to furnish to the 
commanders of her Majesty's cruisers who may be employed in carrying out the 
provisions of the treaty recently concluded between her Majesty's government 
and the government of the United States for the suppression of the African 
slave trade. I have the honor likewise to enclose lists of the several ships em- 
ployed on the African, North American, and West Indian stations, whose com- 
manders will be authorized to act under the treaty, stating also the names of 
the commanders and the force of each vessel ; and I am to request that you will 
furnish me Math a similar list of United States cruisers. I am at the same time 
desired to inform you that her Majesty's government have already mixed com- 
mission courts established at Sierra Leone and the Cape of Good Hope, and 
that by the first mail from England in the present month the officers in those 
courts were to be authorized and instructed to adjudicate in the cases of any 
vessels that may be brought before them under the provisions of the treaty. 
As regards the court to be established at New York, Mr. Archibald, her Ma- 
jesty's consul at that city, is to be appointed to the office of her Majesty's 
judge, and Mr. Ryder, now her Majesty's arbitrator in the mixed commission 
court at the Havana, is to be appointed in the same capacity at New York. 

In making known these appointments to the United States government, I 
am to state to you that her Majesty's government are only now waiting the ap- 
pointment of officers, on the part of the American government to the courts to 
be established at the Cape of Good Hope and Sierra Leone, in order to issue 
the necessary instructions to her majesty's cruisers to carry out the stipulations 
of the treaty between the two countries. 

An officer, in whose discretion and judgment her Majesty's government have 
every confidence, was to be appointed in a few days after the date of Lord 
Russell's despatch to me (which was of the 30th ultimo) to the command of 
her Majesty's naval forces on the west coast of Africa, and it is expected that 
that officer will take his departure from England towards the end of this month. 
As it is considered important that he should take out with him the instructions 
for the squadron to act under the treaty, I am further instructed to ask you 
whether there will be any objection on the part of the United States govern- 
ment to the necessary instructions being sent out by him, or whether they 
would wish that the operations of the squadrons should be delayed until they 
are assured of the arrival at their post of the officers appointed on the part of 
the United States government to the mixed commission courts on the African 
coast. 

I shall accordingly feel obliged to you if you will make me acquainted with 
the decision of the United States government on this matter with as little delay 
as possible. 

I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you the assurance of my highest 
consideration. 

WILLIAM STUART 

Hon. William H. Seward, dec, dec, dec 
19 



290 



Admiralty, August 28, 1862. 

Sir : With reference to your letters of the 5th June last and 14th instant, I 
am commanded by my lords commissioners of the admiralty to acquaint you, 
for the information of Earl Russell, that warrants have been prepared for trans- 
mission to the several officers in command of her Majesty's cruisers engaged in 
the suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa and in the North 
American and West Indian station, to act under the treaty recently concluded 
between Great Britain and the United States of America. An act of Parliament 
necessary for carrying the treaty into effect, viz : the 25th and 26th Vic, cap. 
40, has now passed, and, in accordance with my letter of the 13th June last, 
warrants, with copies of the treaty, are ready for transmission to the officers as 
soon as my lords are informed that the mixed courts of justice are established 
and ready to take cognizance of captures made by virtue of the said treaty. 

A list of the ships, with their force, to which these warrants will be sent, is, 
at present, as stated in the enclosed list. 
I am, &c, 

W. G. ROMAINE. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



By the commissioners for executing the office of lord high admiral of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 

Whereas a treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America, 
for the suppression of the slave trade, was signed at Washington on the 7th 
April, 1862, instructions for cruisers, marked A, and regulations for mixed 
courts of justice, marked B, being annexed thereto, and declared to form an 
integral part thereof, and the ratifications of the same were exchanged at 
London on the 20th of May, 1862 ; and whereas the high contracting parties 
mutually agreed thereby that ships of their respective navies, furnished with 
the instructions contained in annex A to the treaty, might visit, search, and 
send in for trial, merchant vessels of the two nations suspected on reasonable 
grounds of being engaged in the illegal traffic in slaves ; and whereas we think 
fit that her Majesty's ship under your command should be one of those 
authorized to act under the treaty — 

We furnish you with a copy of the said treaty, and of its annexed, marked 
A and B ; and you are hereby expressly authorized, empowered, and ordered 
to act in the suppression of the traffic in slaves according to the said treaty. 



291 



List of her Majesty's ships employed in the suppression of the slave trade a 
Cape of Good Hope and West Coast of Africa. 



Ship's name. 



Guns 



Narcissus ... 

Orestes 

Gorgon 

Ariel .., 

Penguin ... 
Rattlesnake 

Brisk 

Zebra 

Rapid 

Wrangler .. 
Ranger .... 

Torch 

Espoir 

Philomel 

Griffen 

Dart 

Lee . .. 

Muhet 

Bloodhound 

Antelope 

Investigator 
Wye 



39 

21 

6 

7 

5 

19 

16 

17 

11 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

5 

2 

2 



Commanding officer's name. 



Captain J. G. Bickford 

Captain Att Gardner 

Commander J E. Wilson 

Commander W. E. Chapman 

Lieutenant J. G. G. McHardy 

Captain Arthur P. Wilmot 

Captain John P. Luce. 

Commander A. H. Haskins... 

Commander E. J. Jago.. 

Commander Henry Beamish 

Commander H. R. Wratislaw 

Commander Fred. H. Smith 

Commander sholto Douglass .... 

Commander Levison Wildman 

Commander J. L Perry 

Commander F. W. Richards 

Commander Edwin J. Symonds.. 

Commander E. H Simpson. 

Lieutenant John G. Stokes .. 

Lieutenant E. O'Dallingham 

Lieutenant B. L. Lefroy 

Master Comm'g T. G. Roberts .. 



Remarks. 



Flag-ship. 



Tender to Narcissus. 
Commodore. 



List of her Majesty's ships employed in the suppression of the slave trade at 
North America and West Indies. 



Ship's name. 


Guns. 


Commanding officer's name. 


Remarks. 




89 
78 
46 
35 
26 
39 
22 
21 
21 
6 
8 

17 
17 
6 
6 
6 
6 
11 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 






Nile 




Flag-ship. 


Orlando ...... 


Captain George Hancock 

Captain Edward Tatham 

Captain J. T. Kennedy 


Ariadne. .... 




Pha?ton . ...... .... 




Challenge 






(Acting.) 


Jason .... ...... 


Captain R. V. Hamilton 


Vesuvius.... .... ..... 




Desperate .... 


Commander W. N. W. Hewitt 

Commander W. E. T. Wilson.... 

Commander Hon. W. J. Ward 

Commander Darcy L Purton 

Commander G. W. Watson 

Commander W. S. De Kautrow. . 

Commander Hon. A. L. Corry 




Rinaldo .... 




Spiteful 




Styx 




Medea 




Petrel 




Landrail ....... ...... 






(Acting.) 


Steady .. 


Glover 






Tender to Nile. 









292 



Mr. Seicard to Mr. Stuart. 

Department op State, 
Washington, September 18, 1862. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 16th 
instant in regard to Francis Carroll, and it gives me much pleasure to admit all 
the liberality and candor of the sentiments upon that subject which you have 
expressed. 

I transmit, herewith, a note relating to the same case, which I have just received 
from Major Turner, assistant judge advocate general, to whom the subject of 
Carroll's detention was referred by the honorable Secretary of War. In view 
of the additional light thrown upon the case by this letter, and of the further fact 
that the invading insurgents who entered Maryland for the purpose of producing 
an armed uprising of the disloyal inhabitants there have not yet left the State, I 
have felt obliged to acquiesce in the opinion of the War Department, that it 
would be hazardous to the public safety to discharge Francis Carroll from con- 
finement at the present time. I will, however, with pleasure, recur to the subject 
after some little delay, if you desire it. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. Wm. Stuart, fye., Sp., fyc. 



Major Turner to Mr. Seward. 



War Department, 
Washington City, September 17, 1862. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 15th 
instant, in relation to Francis Carroll, with the enclosures therein named, and in 
answer thereto, and additional to my communication of the 5th instant upon the 
same subject, respectfully to say : That since the 5th instant, by order of the Sec- 
retary of War, 1 have examined the persons imprisoned at Fort Lafayette for 
alleged political offences, and among the persons examined was Francis Carroll. 
He claimed to be a British subject and in nowise amenable to the United States 
government. He said he would not take an oath to abstain from rendering aid 
and comfort to the rebellion, because, owing no allegiance to the United States, 
he had the right to aid and assist "either side," at his pleasure. He is an Irish- 
man, of unusual volubility, and apparently, by his language and conduct, a 
desperate and reckless person. 

Although it may not be strictly within the rules of official correspondence, I 
will take the liberty to state that the commandant at Fort Lafayette informed 
me that Carroll addressed a letter to the British consulate at New York, asking 
intervention and protection, if they had time, aside from wine and women, to 
give it, and that the answer thereto was, that if he used language as impertinent 
and insulting to the United States officials, his imprisonment was merited 

There may not be any objection to discharging Carroll on condition that he 
will leave the United States, as suggested in the postscript of your note, provided 
it be desired, and reliable assurance or guarantee be given that he shall not return ; 
but in times like the present, I am quite sure that persons of such desperate and 
reckless character had better be under restraint, for the better preservation of the 
peace and good order of all nationalities. 

With assurances that your suggestions and recommendations in this regard 



293 

will be promptly followed, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obe 
dient servant, 

L. C. TURNER, Judge Advocate. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward. 



Washington, September 25, 1862. 

The undersigned, her Britannic Majesty's charge d'affaires to the United 
States of America, has received instructions from her Britannic Majesty's 
principal secretary of state for foreign affairs to address to the Secretary of 
State of the United States a further representation respecting the restrictions 
imposed by the United States government on trade between New York and 
ports in the British West Indies. 

The undersigned is instructed to say that her Majesty's government consider 
the question to be one of great importance, and that, however desirous they 
may be of making every allowance for the difficulties of the position of the 
United States government, it is impossible for them to acquiesce in the system 
of interference with the legitimate trade of Great Britain which is now prac- 
ticed by the United States authorities, such interference being not only in con- 
travention of the existing treaties between Great Britain and the United States, 
but being also contrary to the established principles of international laAV. 

It appears that British vessels lawfully trading between New York and the 
Bahamas are, in some instances, refused clearances at New York, and in others, 
after having been regularly cleared, with full knowledge by the United States 
authorities of the articles on board, are detained and searched, and are required 
either to reland portions of their cargoes, or to give bonds that no part of the 
cargo shall, at any indefinite time, be used by the enemies of the United States. 
And these proceedings are not claimed to be prescribed by any general law or 
regulation of commerce, but are avowed to be wholly discretionary with the 
collector of customs, to be enforced by him whensoever he shall entertain the 
suspicion and belief that the real destination of the cargo is, mediately or im- 
mediately, to some port in the possession of the enemies of the United States, 
or if he shall be satisfied that "there is imminent danger that the goods, wares, 
and merchandise, of whatever description, laden on such vessels, will fall into 
the possession or under the control of the insurgents," &c. The collector of 
customs, in his report of the 12th of June, states that, "in the exercise of the 
discretion devolved upon him as an officer of the government of a sovereign 
people, he had prohibited the shipment of coals, and dry goods, and shoes, and 
quinine, and other drugs, and tin ware, and munitions of war, and sundry other 
articles, to Nassau and the West Indies, and other foreign ports, when he had 
reason to suspect that they were intended, by individual enterprise, or the 
special contracts of British subjects, to contribute directly to the welfare of the 
enemies of the United States." 

The undersigned is instructed to state that her Majesty's government cannot 
call to mind any principle of international jurisprudence, nor any precedent ap- 
proved by international law, to justify such interference with the trade of 
neutrals. 

The undersigned would submit to the consideration of the cabinet at Wash- 
ington that trade between Great Britain and the United States, at least as to 
ports and places in the undisturbed possession of the United States, is not in 
any degree affected by the state of war in which the United States are engaged, 



294 

and, moreover, that trade between Great Britain and an enemy of the United 
States (the former preserving a strict neutrality or indifference between the 
belligerent parties) can be affected only in the manner and to the extent pre- 
scribed by the international law of blockade. 

The United States government will admit that shipments similar to those 
now subjected to interference from New York to Nassau and other British ports, 
if made in time of peace, could not be prohibited without giving manifest cause 
of just complaint to Great Britain, especially while such shipments remain open 
to other nations not having with the United States treaties of a more favorable 
nature. It follows that to prohibit such shipments to British subjects while 
permitting them to the subjects of other nations is to assume a state of quasi 
hostility to Great Britain on account of geographical or other circumstances 
supposed to mix her up with interests of the enemy of the United States. 

The doctrine assumed by the United States authorities would seem to be 
that goods which ordinarily may be lawfully shipped from the United States 
by British subjects to certain British ports in British bottoms may be em- 
bargoed, if, in the judgment of an inferior officer, such as the collector of a port, 
there is imminent danger that on their passage to the British port the enemy 
will unlawfully seize them, or that, having safely arrived at that port, they may, 
with greater facility, be exported thence to the enemy, or that they may, in 
any way, "fall into the possession of, or under the control of, the enemy." 

The undersigned is instructed to say that her Majesty's government cannot 
assent to such a doctrine. 

Great Britain has declared her neutrality in the contest now raging between 
the United States government and the so-styled Confederate States. She is, 
consequently, entitled to the rights of neutrals, and to insist that her commerce 
shall not be interrupted, except upon the principles which ordinarily apply to 
neutrals. These principles authorize nothing more than the maintenance of a 
strict and actual blockade of the enemy's ports by such force as shall, at the 
least, make it evidently dangerous to attempt to enter them. But the fact of a 
neutral ship having succeeded in evading a blockade affords no ground for in- 
ternational complaint, nor is it an offence which can be punished upon any sub- 
sequent seizure of the ship after she shall have successfully run the blockade. 
Her Majesty's government consider that it would be introducing a novel and 
dangerous principle in the law of nations if belligerents, instead of maintaining 
an effectual blockade, were to be allowed, upon mere suspicion or belief, well or 
ill-founded, that certain merchandise could ultimately find its way into the 
enemy's country, to cut off all or any commerce between their commercial allies 
and themselves. This would be to substitute for the effectual blockade recog- 
nized by the law of nations a comparatively cheap and easy method of inter- 
rupting the trade of neutrals. But when this illegal substitute for such a 
blockade is applied to a particular nation on account of the geographical posi- 
tion of its territories, or for other reasons, while the same ports of the belli- 
gerent are open for like exports by other nations, the case assumes a still graver 
complexion. 

The undersigned is further instructed to say that, although the question 
raised by this interference with the trade of Great Britain is as to what are the 
international obligations of the United States towards Great Britain as a neutral 
country, and not as to what may be at any given moment the local laws of the 
United States, which laws cannot override treaty rights, it may not be amiss to 
point out that the system of interference complained of is, apparently, not in 
conformity, even, with the terms of the act of Congress under which the trea- 
sury instructions were issued. That act authorizes the refusal of clearances to 
foreign vessels only Avhen the Secretary of the Treasury should "have satis- 
factory reasons to believe that the goods, or some part of them, were intended 
for ports or places in possession or under control of insurgents against the 



295 

United States," and authorizes bonds to be taken only to secure the delivery of 
the cargo at the destination for which it is cleared, and in order that no part 
should be "used in affording aid or comfort to any person or parties in insur- 
rection against the authority of the United States." 

If this latter condition is to be understood, as in reasonable construction it 
must, of any use preceding delivery at the specified destination, it may not be 
objectionable; but if meant to make the master and owner responsible for any 
subsequent use of the articles constituting the cargo after they have passed be- 
yond their power or control, it is unreasonable and perfectly inadmissible. 
With respect to the apprehension of "imminent danger that goods, &c, may 
fall into the possession or under the control of the insurgents," it may also be 
observed that the act of Congress appears to contain no provisions whatever 
applicable to any exports by sea from the United States ; the third section, 
which relates to that subject, being strictly confined to "importations into any 
port of the United States," and to " transportation upon any railroad, turnpike, 
or other road or means of transportation within the United States." It would 
therefore appear that what has been done with respect to this point is not only 
contrary to the obligations of treaties and international law, but also beyond 
the letter of the special and extraordinary enactments passed by Congress 
itself. 

The President cannot expect that Great Britain should allow British trade 
with her own colonies by way of the United States, or the trade between her 
own colonies and the United States, to be fettered by restrictions and conditions 
inconsistent with treaties between the United States and Great Britain, and 
repugnant to international law. 

Her Majesty's government expect, therefore, that the President, in the exer- 
cise of his discretion, will prohibit the imposing of all such restrictions and 
conditions as have been complained of in the present note. 

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretary 
of State the assurance of his highest consideration. 

W. STUART. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 



Department of State, 

Washington, September 25, 1862. 

The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has had the honor 
to receive the note of this date from Mr. Stuart, her Britannic Majesty's charge 
d'affaires, on the subject of the restrictions imposed by this government on trade 
between the port of New York and the British West Indies. 

The undersigned will loose no time in laying this communication before the 
President, with a view to take his directions in regard to a reply to the same. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to offer to Mr. Stuart a 
renewed assurance of his very high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Hon. William Stuart, Sfc., fyc., fyc. 



296 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. 

Department of State, 

Washington, October 3, 1862. 

Sir : The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, having taken 
the President's instructions, has now the honor to reply to the note which was 
addressed to the undersigned by the honorable William Stuart, her Britannic 
Majesty's charge d'affaires, on the 25th day of September last, concerning cer- 
tain proceedings of the collector of customs at New York, affecting clearances of 
vessels and cargoes from that port to British ports in the Bahama islands. 

In June last, Lord Lyons, her Britannic Majesty's minister, then residing 
here, submitted to the undersigned a letter which had then recently been 
addressed to his lordship by P. Edwards, esq., her Majesty's acting consul at 
New York. It was set forth in that communication that the custom-house 
authorities in that port had, upon several occasions, thrown serious impediments 
in the way of the shipment of coal, as ordinary merchandise, to Nassau, and, in 
some cases where the goods were already embarked and even cleared at the cus- 
tom-house, they had refused to permit the vessel to go to sea until such goods 
have been relanded ; and that one of the officials had shown him an order, issued 
from the Treasury Department, of the 18th of April, in which shipments of coal 
were prohibited to any ports or places north of Cape St. Roque and west of the 
fifteenth degree of longitude east, where there was a reason to suspect that it 
might be intended for the use of tbe so-called confederate government or ships, 
and this prohibition embraced all the British North American colonies, British 
West Indies, Bermuda, and the British possessions on the coast of South Amer- 
ica. Mr. Edwards also stated, in the same letter, that, upon inquiry of the offi- 
cer having superintendence of the clearance bureau whether it was intended that 
this order should be strictly enforced, that officer replied that such was the col- 
lector's intention. Mr. Edwards proceeded to state that a British merchant, 
largely interested in the trade of the North American colonies and West Indies, 
had informed him that that merchant had made repeated applications to the cus- 
tom-house to be allowed to export coal, some of which was to be tendered for the 
use of her Majesty's vessels upon the West India station, at the same time offering 
to enter into bonds that it should be landed in foreign ports, but that his appli- 
cations had all been rejected. Mr. Edwards then commented on what he 
assumed to be the instructions of the Hon. Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treas- 
ury of the United States, to the collector at New York, and complained that 
the very great discretionary powers which those instructions Avere supposed to give 
to the collector had been used to the annoyance and injury of British trade, and, 
in this connexion, he represented that in one case where a quantity of dry 
goods, consisting of plain and printed cotton fabrics, had been shipped on a 
British vessel for Nassau, the shippers were obliged, by the custom-house, to 
reland them before permission for the vessel to proceed to sea could be obtained ; 
that in another a number of packages of shoes were prohibited from exportation ; 
and that, in a more recent case, where an order had been received from some 
merchants at Nassau to ship a quantity of drugs, consisting of sulphate of qui- 
nine, cantharides, and acids, only a portion of the order was permitted to be 
exported. Mr. Edwards further stated that, at one time, strong exception was 
taken by the custom-house officials to what they alleged to be an extraordinary 
quantity of flour and provisions shipped at New York for the British West 
Indies, but that he was not aware that it amounted to actual prohibition. Mr. 
Edwards concluded with saying that much inconvenience had been experienced, 
and yet continued to be experienced, by British merchants in New York from 
the manner in which the instructions issued by the Treasury Department had 
been enforced; that articles of ordinary export were at times prohibited, and 



297 

while wares which could be of service to belligerents have been allowed to pass 
uninvestigated. 

The letter of Lord Lyons was immediately submitted to the Secretary of the 
Treasury for his consideration. That officer, upon examining the case, commu- 
nicated a note to this department, in which he stated that the restrictions upon 
the exportation of coal had been enforced by the collector under instructions of 
the treasury, of the 18th of April, 1862, alike upon domestic and foreign ship- 
ping clearing to ports north of Cape St. Roque and west of the fifteenth degree 
of longitude east ; and the treasury would, with pleasure, remove all restrictions 
upon trade when the existing imperative necessity which had induced them 
should cease. The Secretary of the Treasury, with his note, communicated to 
the undersigned a report upon the general subject from the collector of the cus ' 
toms at New York, in which that officer stated that, in the exercise of the dis 
cretion devolved upon him, he had prohibited the shipment of coals, dry goods, 
shoes, quinine and other drugs, tin ware, munitions of war, and sundry other 
articles, to Nassau and the West Indies, and other foreign ports, when he had 
reason to suspect that they were intended, by individual enterprise, or the special 
contracts of British subjects, directly to contribute to the welfare of the enemies 
of the United States; and, in regard to the statement of Mr. Edwards, that articles 
of ordinary export have, at times, been prohibited, while wares which could only 
be of service to a belligerent were allowed to pass unquestioned, the collector 
answered that he had no data in his possession which could be referred to for 
the facts thus charged. 

The note of the Secretary of the Treasury and the report of the collector of 
customs at New York were promptly communicated by the undersigned to the 
honorable Mr. Stuart, who transmitted the same to his government. 

The note of Mr. Stuart which is now under consideration presents, as the 
undersigned is informed, the views of her Majesty's government upon the sub- 
ject of the correspondence which has been briefly but, as is believed, fairly 
recited. By that note the undersigned is informed that her Majesty's govern- 
ment regard the subject as one of gijeat importance, and that, however desirous 
of making every allowance for the difficulties of the position of the United 
States that government may be, it is impossible for them to acquiesce in the 
system of interference with the legitimate trade of Great Britain which is now 
practiced by the United States authorities, such interference being not only in 
contravention of the treaties existing between Great Britain and the United 
States, but also the established principles of international law. 

Mr. Stuart then, upon the documents which have been recited, states the 
case which is thus pronounced to be inadmissible, as follows, namely : " It 
appears that British vessels lawfully trading between New York and the 
Bahamas are in some instances refused clearances at New York, and in others, 
after having been regularly cleared, with full knowledge of the United States 
authorities of the articles on board, are detained and searched, and are required 
either to reland portions of their cargoes or to give bonds that no part of the 
cargo shall at any intermediate time be used by the enemies of the United 
States. And these proceedings are not claimed to be prescribed by any general 
law or regulation of commerce, but are avowed to be wholly discretionary with 
the collector of the customs, to be enforced by him whenever he shall entertain 
the suspicion and belief that the real destination of the cargo is, mediately or 
immediately, to some port in the possession of the enemies of the United States, 
or if he shall be satisfied that there is imminent danger that the goods, wares, 
and merchandise, of whatever description, loaded on such vessels will fall into 
the possession or under the control of the insurgents. The collector of the 
customs, in his report of the 12th of June, states that, in the exercise of the 
discretion devolved upon him as an officer of the government of a sovereign 
people, he had prohibited the shipment of coals and dry goods and shoes, and 



298 

quinine and other drugs, and tin-ware, and munitions of war, and sundry other 
articles, to Nassau and tlie West Indies, and other foreign ports where he had 
reason to suspect that they were intended, by individual enterprise, or the 
special contracts of British subjects, to contribute directly to the welfare of the 
enemies of the United States." 

Upon the facts thus assumed Mr. Stuart proceeds to argue the case, saying 
that her Majesty's government cannot call to mind any principle of international 
jurisprudence, nor any precedent approved by international law, to justify such 
interference with the trade of neutrals. That trade between Great Britain and 
the United States, at least as to ports and places in the undisturbed possession 
of the United States, is not in any degree affected by the state of war in which 
the United States are engaged ; and, moreover, that trade between Great 
Britain and an enemy of the United States (the former preserving a strict 
neutrality or indifference between the belligerent parties) can be affected only 
by the international law of blockade. Mr. Stuart proceeds to remark that the 
United States will admit that shipments similar to those now subjected to inter- 
ference from New York to Nassau and other British ports, if made in time of 
peace, could not be prohibited without giving manifest cause of just complaint 
to Great Britain, especially when such shipments remain open to other nations 
not having with the United States treaties of a more favorable nature. It fol- 
lows, therefore, Mr. Stuart says, that to prohibit such shipments to British sub- 
jects, while permitting them to the subjects of other nations, is to assume a 
state of quasi hostility to Great Britain, on account of geographical or other 
circumstances supposed to mix her up with the interests of the enemy of the 
United States. Mr. Stuart proceeds to remark that the doctrine assumed by 
the United States authorities would seem to be that goods which ordinarily 
may be lawfully shipped from the United States by British subjects to certain 
British ports in British bottoms may be embargoed if, in the judgment of an 
inferior officer, such as the collector of a port, there is imminent danger that on 
their passage to the British port the enemy will unlawfully seize them, or that, 
having safely arrived at that port, they may with greater facility be exported 
thence to the enemy, or that they may in any way fall into the possession of 
or under the control of the enemy. After declaring that he is instructed to say 
that her Majesty's government cannot assent to such a doctrine, Mr. Stuart 
observes that Great Britain has declared her neutrality in the contest now 
raging between the United States government and the so-called Confederate 
States, and that she is consequently entitled to the rights of neutrals and to 
insist that her commerce shall not be interrupted except upon the principles 
which ordinarily apply to neutrals ; that these principles authorize nothing 
more than the maintenance of a strict and actual blockade of that enemy's 
ports, by such force as shall at least make it evidently dangerous to attempt to 
enter them. But the fact of a neutral ship having succeeded in evading a 
blockade affords no ground for international complaint, nor is it an offence 
which can be punished upon any subsequent seizure of the ship after she has 
successfully run the blockade. Mr. Stuart adds that her Majesty's government 
consider that it would be introducing a novel and dangerous principle in the 
law of nations if belligerents, instead of maintaining an effective blockade, were 
to be allowed, upon mere suspicion or belief, well or ill founded, that certain 
merchandise could ultimately find its way into the enemy's country, to cut off 
all or any commerce between their commercial allies and themselves ; that this 
would be to substitute for the effectual blockade recognized by the law of 
nations a comparatively cheap and easy method of interrupting the trade of 
neutrals. But when this illegal substitution for such a blockade is applied to a 
particular nation, on account of the geographical position of its territories, or for 
other reasons, while the same ports of the belligerent are open for like exports 
to other nations, the case assumes a still graver complexion. Mr. Stuart adds 



299 

that, although the question raised by the supposed interference with the trade 
of Great Britain is as to what are the international obligations of the United 
States towards Great Britain as a neutral country, and not as to what may be 
at any given moment the local laws of the United States, which laws cannot 
overreach treaty rights, it may not be amiss to point out that the system of 
interference complained of is apparently not in conformity even with the terms 
of the act of Congress under which the treasury instructions were issued ; that 
that act authorizes the refusal of clearances to foreign vessels only when the 
Secretary of the Treasury shall have satisfactory reasons to believe that the 
goods or some part of them are intended for ports or places in possession or 
under control of insurgents against the United States, and authorizes bonds to 
be taken only to secure the delivery of the cargo at the destination for which 
it is cleared, and in order that no part thereof should be used in affording aid 
or comfort to any person or parties in insurrection against the authority of the 
United States. 

Mr. Stuart then argues that if this latter condition is to be understood, as in 
reasonable construction it must, of any use preceding delivery at the specified 
destination, it may not be objectionable, but if meant to make the master and 
owner responsible for any subsequent use of the articles constituting the cargo 
after they have passed beyond their power of control, it is unreasonable and 
perfectly inadmissible. Mr. Stuart further remarks that, with respect to the 
apprehension of imminent danger that goods, &c, may fall into the possession 
or under the control of the insurgents, it may also be observed that the act of 
Congress appears to contain no provisions applicable to any exports by sea 
from the United States, the third section which relates to that subject being 
strictly confined to importations into any part of the United States, and to 
transportation upon any railroad, turnpike, or other road or other means of 
transportation within the United States. Therefore (Mr. Stuart remarks) it 
would appear that what has been done with respect to this point is not only 
contrary to the obligations of treaties and of international law, but also beyond 
the special and extraordinary enactments prepared by Congress itself. Mr. 
Stuart concludes that the President cannot expect that Great Britain should 
allow British trade with her own colonies, by way of the United States, or the 
trade between her own colonies and the United States, to be fettered by restric- 
tions and conditions inconsistent with treaties between the United States and 
Great Britain, and repugnant to international law, and that therefore her Ma- 
jesty's government expect that the President, in the exercise of his discretion, 
will prohibit the imposing of all such restrictions and conditions as have thus 
been complained of. 

The undersigned regrets that Mr. Stuart, while so steadily insisting that the 
proceedings of which he complains are in contravention of international law, 
has not thought it important to favor the undersigned with references to the 
particular principles or maxims of that law which are thus assumed to be in- 
fringed. This omission is the more regretted because the examination of 
authorities made by the undersigned has failed in bringing those principles and 
maxims into view. Mr. Stuart has equally omitted to indicate the particular 
treaty obligations of the United States which he claims have been infringed. 
The undersigned, however, finds in the convention to regulate the commerce 
between the United States and his Britannic Majesty, which was concluded on 
the 3d day of July, 1815, and which was renewed by the convention of the 
6th August, 1817, which, in the absence of reference by Mr. Stuart, are assumed 
to be those to which Mr. Stuart alludes. The first of these is in the words 
following : 

Article 1. There shall be, between the territories of the United States of 
America and all the territories of his Britannic Majesty in Europe, a reciprocal 
liberty of commerce. The inhabitants of the two countries, respectively, shall 



300 

have liberty freely and securely to come, with their ships and cargoes, to all 
such places, ports, and rivers in the territories aforesaid to which other for- 
eigners are permitted to come, to enter into the same, and to remain and reside 
in any part of said territories respectively ; also to hire and occupy houses and 
warehouses for the purposes of their commerce, and, generally, the merchants 
and traders of each nation, respectively, shall enjoy the most complete protec- 
tion and security for their commerce, but subject always to the laws and statutes 
of the two countries, respectively. 

Article 2 No higher or other duty shall be imposed on the importation 
into the United States of any articles, the growth, produce, or manufacture of 
his Britannic Majesty's territories in Europe, and no higher or other duties 
shall be imposed on the importation into the territories of his Britannic Majesty 
in Europe of any articles, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United 
States, than are or shall be payable on the like articles, being the growth, pro- 
duce, or manufacture of any other foreign country ; nor shall any higher or 
other duties or charges be imposed in either of the two countries on the expor- 
tation of any articles to the United States, or to his Britannic Majesty's terri- 
tories in Europe, respectively, than such as are payable on the exportation of 
the like articles to any foreign country. Nor shall any prohibition be imposed 
on the exportation or importation of any articles, the growth, produce, or man- 
ufacture of the United States, or of his Britannic Majesty's territories in Eu- 
rope, to or from the said territories of his Britannic Majesty in Europe, or to or 
from the said United States, which shall not equally extend to all other nations. 

By enactments of the legislatures of the two countries, the British colonies 
are brought within the effect of the stipulations in these conventions. 

Having thus, as far as possible, established the standard by which the pro- 
ceedings complained of are to be tried, the undersigned proceeds to examine 
those proceedings themselves. 

On the 20th of May, 1862, the Congress of the United States enacted a law 
the first three sections of which are as follows : 

" Section 1. That the Secretary of the Treasury, in addition to the powers 
conferred upon him by the act of the 13th of July, 1861, be, and he is hereby, 
authorized to refuse a clearance to any vessel or other vehicle, laden with goods, 
wares, or merchandise, destined for a foreign or domestic port, whenever he 
shall have satisfactory reasons to believe that such goods, wares, or merchan- 
dise, or any part thereof, whatever may be their ostensible destination, are in- 
tended for ports or places in possession or under control of insurgents against 
the United States ; and if any vessel or other vehicle, for which a clearance or 
permit shall have been refused by the Secretary of the Treasury, or by his 
order as aforesaid, shall depart or attempt to depart for a foreign or domestic 
port without being duly cleared or permitted, such vessel or other vehicle, with 
her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo shall be forfeited to the United States. 

" Sec. 2. That whenever a permit or clearance is granted for either a foreign 
or domestic port it shall be lawful for the collector, if he deem it necessary 
under the circumstances of the case, to require a bond to be executed by the 
master or the owner of the vessel in a penalty equal to the value of the cargo, 
and with sureties to the satisfaction of said collector that the said cargo shall 
be delivered at the destination for which it is cleared or permitted, and that no 
part thereof shall be used in affording aid or comfort to any person or parties in 
insurrection against the authority of the United States. 

"Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, further 
empowered to prohibit and prevent the transportation on any vessel, or upon 
any railroad, turnpike, or other road or means of transportation within the 
United States, of any goods, wares, or merchandise of whatever character, and 
whatever may be the ostensible destination of the same, in all cases where there 
shall be satisfactory reason to believe that such goods, wares, or merchandise 



301 

are intended for any place in the possession or under the control of the insur- 
gents against the United States, or that there is imminent danger that such 
goods, wares, or merchandise will fall into the possession or under the control 
of such insurgents ; and he is further authorized, in all cases when he shall 
deem it expedient so to do, to require reasonable security to be given that the 
goods, wares, or merchandise shall not be transported to any place under the 
insurrectionary control, and shall not in any Avay be used to give aid or comfort 
to such insurgents ; and he may establish all such general or special regulations 
as may be necessary or proper to carry into effect the purposes of this act ; and 
if any goods, wares, or merchandise shall be transported in violation of this act, 
or of any regulation of the Secretary of the Treasury established in pursuance 
thereof, or if any attempt shall be made so to transport, then all goods, wares, 
and merchandise so transported or attempted to be transported shall be forfeited 
to the United States." 

After considering the arguments of Mr. Stuart in the most careful manner, it 
is not apparent to the undersigned that they invalidate the act of Congress, the 
substance of which has been recited. By the law of nations every state is 
sovereign over its own citizens and strangers residing within its limits, its own 
productions and fabrics, and its own ports and waters, and its highv ays, and, 
generally, within all its proper territories. It has a right to maintain that sove- 
reignty against sedition and insurrection by civil preventives, and penalties, 
and armed force, and it has a right to interdict and prohibit, within its own 
boundaries, exportation of its productions and fabrics, and the supplying of 
traitors, in arms against itself, with material and munitions, and any other form 
of aid and comfort. It has a right, within its own territories, to employ all the 
means necessary to make these prohibitions effective. It does not appear to the 
undersigned that the United States have surrendered this right by the conven- 
tion between themselves and Great Britain which has been recited. It is true 
that, by the first article of the convention of 1815, British merchants have liberty 
f